Frotr  JONES’ 

BOOK  STORE, 
L - 


COLLEGE  HISTORIES  OF  ART 


EDITED  BY 

JOHN  C.  VAN  DYKE,  L.H.D. 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 


IOHN  C.  VAN  DYKE. 


COLLEGE  HISTORIES  OF  ART 

EDITED  BY 


JOHN  C.  VAN  DYKE,  L.H.D. 

Professor  of  the  History  of  Art  in  Rutgers 
College 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 
By  John  C.  Van  Dyke,  the  Editor  of  the  Series.  With 
Frontispiece  and  no  Illustrations,  Bibliographies,  and 
Index.  Crown  8vo,  $1.50. 

HISTORY  OF  ARCHITECTURE 
By  Alfred  D.  F.  Hamlin,  A.M.,  Adjunct  Professor  of 
Architecture,  Columbia  College,  New  York.  With 
Frontispiece  and  229  Illustrations  and  Diagrams,  Bibli- 
ographies, Glossary,  Index  of  Architects,  and  a Genera) 
Index.  Crown  8vo,  $2.00. 

HISTORY  OF  SCULPTURE 
By  Allan  Marquand,  Ph.D.,  L.H.D.,  and  Arthur  L. 
Frothingham,  Jr.,  Ph.D.,  Professors  of  Archaeology 
and  the  History  of  Art  in  Princeton  University.  With 
Frontispiece  and  112  Illustrations.  Crown  8vo,  $1.50. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2016 


https://archive.org/details/textbookofhistor00vand_0 


Velasquez.  Head  of  ^Esop.  Madrid. 


A TEXT-BOOK 


OF  THE 

HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 


BY 

JOHN  C.  VAN  DYKE,  L.H.D 


PROFESSOR  OF  THE  HISTORY  OF  ART  IN  RUTGERS  COLLEGE,  AND  AUTHOR  OF 
“ART  FOR  ART’S  SAKE,”  “THE  MEANING  OF  PICTURES,”  ETC. 


SEVENTH  EDITION 


NEW  YORK 

LONGMANS,  GREEN,  AND  CO. 

LONDON  AND  BOMBAY 

I9°4 


Copyright,  1894,  by 
LONGMANS,  GREEN,  AND  CO. 

All  rights  reserved. 


First  Edition,  October,  1894. 

Reprinted,  March,  1895,  and  November,  1896,  revised. 
November,  1897,  and  November,  1898, 
November,  1899,  and  October,  1901. 

December,  1902,  and  April,  1904. 


Press  of  J.  J.  Little  & Co. 
Astor  Place,  New  York 


PREFACE. 


The  object  of  this  series  of  text-books  is  to  provide 
concise  teachable  histories  of  art  for  class-room  use  in 
schools  and  colleges.  The  limited  time  given  to  the  study 
of  art  in  the  average  educational  institution  has  not  only 
dictated  the  condensed  style  of  the  volumes,  but  has  lim- 
ited their  scope  of  matter  to  the  general  features  of  art 
history.  Archaeological  discussions  on  special  subjects  and 
aesthetic  theories  have  been  avoided.  The  main  facts  of 
history  as  settled  by  the  best  authorities  are  given.  If  the 
reader  choose  to  enter  into  particulars  the  bibliography 
cited  at  the  head  of  each  chapter  will  be  found  helpful. 
Illustrations  have  been  introduced  as  sight-help  to  the  text, 
and,  to  avoid  repetition,  abbreviations  have  been  used 
wherever  practicable.  The  enumeration  of  the  principal 
extant  works  of  an  artist,  school,  or  period,  and  where  they 
may  be  found,  which  follows  each  chapter,  may  be  service- 
able not  only  as  a summary  of  individual  or  school  achieve- 
ment, but  for  reference  by  travelling  students  in  Europe. 

This  volume  on  painting,  the  first  of  the  series,  omits 
mention  of  such  work  in  Arabic,  Indian,  Chinese,  and  Per- 
sian art  as  may  come  properly  under  the  head  of  Ornament 


Vlll 


PREFACE. 


— a subject  proposed  for  separate  treatment  hereafter.  In 
treating  of  individual  painters  it  has  been  thought  best  to 
give  a short  critical  estimate  of  the  man  and  his  rank 
among  the  painters  of  his  time  rather  than  the  detailed 
facts  of  his  life.  Students  who  wish  accounts  of  the  lives 
of  the  painters  should  use  Vasari,  Larousse,  and  the  Ency- 
clopedia Britannica  in  connection  with  this  text-book. 

Acknowledgments  are  made  to  the  respective  publishers 
of  Woltmann  and  Woermann’s  History  of  Painting,  and 
the  fine  series  of  art  histories  by  Perrot  and  Chipiez,  for 
permission  to  reproduce  some  few  illustrations  from  these 
publications. 

John  C.  Van  Dyke. 


Rutgers  College,  1894. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 

, PAGE 

List  of  Illustrations  ....  . . . . . xi 

General  Bibliography  ........  xv 

Introduction xvii 

CHAPTER  I. 

Egyptian  Painting . . i 

CHAPTER  II. 

Chald^eo-Assyrian,  Persian,  Phcenician,  Cypriote,  and  Asia 
Minor  Painting . 10 

CHAPTER  III. 

Greek,  Etruscan,  and  Roman  Painting  . '.  . . .21 

CHAPTER  IV. 

Italian  Painting — Early  Christian  and  Medieval  Period, 

200-1250 36 

CHAPTER  V. 

Italian  Painting — Gothic  Period,  1250-1400  . » . „ 47 

CHAPTER  VI. 

Italian  Painting — Early  Renaissance,  1400-1500  . . <>57 

CHAPTER  VII. 

Italian  Painting — Early  Renaissance,  1400-1500,  Continued.  73 

CPIAPTER  VIII. 


Italian  Painting — High  Renaissance,  1500-1600 


86 


X 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  IX.  page 


Italian  Painting— High  Renaissance,  1500-1600,  Continued  . 99 

CHAPTER  X. 

Italian  Painting — High  Renaissance,  1500-1600,  Continued  .♦  no 
CHAPTER  XI. 

Italian  Painting — The  Decadence  and  Modern  Work,  1600- 

1894 122 

CHAPTER  XII. 

French  Painting— Sixteenth,  Seventeenth,  and  Eighteenth 

Centuries  . ^ 132 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

French  Painting— Nineteenth  Century  . . . .143 

CHAPTER  XIV. 

French  Painting — Nineteenth  Century,  Continued  . .156 


Spanish  Painting 

CHAPTER  XV. 

• 

0 

. 

. 172 

Flemish  Painting 

CHAPTER  XVI. 

0 

0 

. 186 

Dutch  Painting  . 

CHAPTER  XVII. 

German  Painting 

CHAPTER  XVIII. 

0 

. 223 

British  Painting 

CHAPTER  XIX. 

. 

. 241 

American  Painting 

CHAPTER  XX. 

0 

. 

. 260 

Postscript  . 

LIST  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS. 


Velasquez,  Head  of  Aisop,  Madrid  . 

1 Hunting  in  the  Marshes,  Tomb  of  Ti,  Saccarah 

2 Portrait  of  Queen  Taia 

3 Offerings  to  the  Dead.  Wall  painting 

4 Vignette  on  Papyrus 


Frontispiece 


5 Enamelled  Brick,  Nimroud 

11 

6 “ “ Khorsabad 

12 

7 Wild  Ass.  Bas-relief  .... 

14 

8 Lions  Frieze,  Susa 

16 

9 Painted  Head  from  Edessa 

18 

io  Cypriote  Vase  Decoration 

19 

ii  Attic  Grave  Painting  .... 

23 

12  Muse  of  Cortona  ..... 

26 

13  Odyssey  Landscape  ..... 

29 

14  Amphore,  Lower  Italy  .... 

3i 

15  Ritual  Scene,  Palatine  Wall  painting 

33 

16  Portrait,  Fayoum,  Graf  Collection 

35 

17  Chamber  in  Catacombs,  with  wall  decorations 

37 

18  Catacomb  Fresco,  S.  Cecilia 

39 

19  Christ  as  Good  Shepherd,  Ravenna  mosaic 

4i 

20  Christ  and  Saints,  fresco,  S.  Generosa 

43 

21  Ezekiel  before  the  Lord.  MS.  illumination 

45 

22  Giotto,  Flight  into  Egypt,  Arena  Chap. 

49 

23  Orcagna,  Paradise  (detail),  S.  M.  Novella 

5i 

24  Lorenzetti,  Peace  (detail),  Sienna 

53 

PAGE 

2 

4 

6 

8 


Xll 


LIST  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS. 


PAGE 


25  Fra  Angelico,  Angel,  Uffizi  ..... 

55 

26  Fra  Filippo,  Madonna,  Uffizi  ..... 

58 

27  Botticelli,  Coronation  of  Madonna,  Uffizi  . 

60 

28  Ghirlandajo,  Visitation,  Louvre  .... 

62 

29  Francesca,  Duke  of  Urbino,  Uffizi  .... 

64 

30  Signorelli,  The  Curse  (detail),  Orvieto 

66 

31  Perugino,  Madonna,  Saints,  and  Angels,  Louvre 

68 

32  School  of  Francia,  Madonna,  Louvre 

70 

33  Mantegna,  Gonzaga  Family  Group,  Mantua 

74 

34  B.  Vivarini,  Madonna  and  Child,  Turin  . 

0 

76 

35  Giovanni  Bellini,  Madonna,  Venice  Acad. 

78 

36  Carpaccio,  Presentation  (detail),  Venice  Acad.  . 

80 

37  Antonello  da  Messina,  Unknown  Man,  Louvre 

83 

38  Fra  Bartolommeo,  Descent  from  Cross,  Pitti 

87 

39  Andrea  del  Sarto,  Madonna  of  St.  Francis,  Uffizi 

89 

40  Michael  Angelo,  Athlete,  Sistine  Chap.,  Rome 

9i 

41  Raphael,  La  Belle  Jardiniere,  Louvre 

93 

42  Giulio  Romano,  Apollo  and  Muses,  Pitti  . 

96 

43  Leonardo  da  Vinci,  Mona  Lisa,  Louvre  . 

100 

44  Luini,  Daughter  of  Herodias,  Uffizi 

102 

45  Sodoma,  Ecstasy  of  St.  Catherine,  Sienna 

104 

46  Correggio,  Marriage  of  St.  Catherine,  Louvre  . 

106 

47  Giorgione,  Ordeal  of  Moses,  Uffizi  .... 

hi 

48  Titian,  Venus  Equipping  Cupid,  Borghese,  Rome 

113 

49  Tintoretto,  Mercury  and  Graces,  Ducal  Pal.,  Venice 

US 

50  Veronese,  Venice  Enthroned,  Ducal  Pal.,  Venice 

117 

51  Lotto,  Three  Ages,  Pitti  ..... 

n9 

52  Bronzino,  Christ  in  Limbo,  Uffizi  .... 

123 

53  Baroccio,  Annunciation  ...... 

125 

54  Annibale  Caracci,  Entombment  of  Christ,  Louvre 

127 

55  Caravaggio,  The  Card  Players,  Dresden  . 

129 

56  Poussin,  Et  in  Arcadia  Ego,  Louvre 

133 

57  Claude  Lorrain,  Flight  into  Egypt,  Dresden 

135 

58  Watteau,  Gilles,  Louvre  . 

137 

LIST  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS. 


Xlll 


PAGE 

59  Boucher,  Pastoral,  Louvre  . . . • . • • 139 

60  David,  The  Sabines,  Louvre 144 

61  Ingres,  CEdipus  and  Sphinx,  Louvre  .....  146 

62  Delacroix,  Massacre  of  Scio,  Louvre 148 

63  Gerome,  Pollice  Verso  . . . • . . . • 15 1 

64  Corot,  Landscape  . . . . . . . . •I57 

65  Rousseau,  Charcoal  Burner’s  Hut,  Fuller  Collection  . . . 160 

66  Millet,  The  Gleaners,  Louvre 163 

67  Cabanel,  Phaedra  . . 166 

68  Meissonier,  Napoleon  in  1814  . . . . . . .169 

69  Sanchez-Coello,  Daughter  of  Philip  II.,  Madrid  . . . 173 

70  Murillo,  St.  Anthony  of  Padua,  Dresden 175 

71  Ribera,  St.  Agnes,  Dresden  . 178 

72  Fortuny,  Spanish  Marriage  . . . . . . .181 

73  Madrazo,  Unmasked  . . . . . . . .184 

74  Van  Eycks,  St.  Bavon  Altar-piece,  Berlin  . . . .187 

75  Memling  (?),  St.  Lawrence,  Nat.  Gal..  Lon.  ....  189 

76  Massys,  Head  of  Virgin,  Antwerp  ......  191 

77  Rubens,  Portrait  of  Young  Woman  ......  193 

78  Van  Dyck,  Portrait  of  Cornelius  van  der  Geest ....  195 

79  Teniers  the  Younger,  Prodigal  Son,  Louvre  ....  197 

80  Alfred  Stevens,  On  the  Beach  . . . . . . . 200 

81  Hals,  Portrait  of  a Lady  .......  205 

82  Rembrandt,  Head  of  a Woman,  Nat.  Gal.,  Lon.  . . . 208 

83  Ruisdael,  Landscape  . . . . . . . .211 

84  Hobbema,  The  Water  Wheel,  Amsterdam  Mus.  . . .214 

85  Israels,  Alone  in  the  World  .......  217 

86  Mauve,  Sheep  .........  220 

87  Lochner,  Sts.  John,  Catharine,  Matthew,  London  . . . 224 

88  Wolgemut,  Crucifixion,  Munich  ......  226 

89  Diirer,  Praying  Virgin,  Augsburg  . . . . . .228 

90  Holbein,  Portrait,  Hague  Mus.  ......  230 

91  Piloty,  Wise  and  Foolish  Virgins  ......  232 

92  Leibl,  In  Church  ......  235 


xiv  LIST  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS. 

PAGE 

93  Menzel,  A Reader 238 

94  Hogarth,  Shortly  after  Marriage,  Nat.  Gal.,  Lon.  . . . 242 

95  Reynolds,  Countess  Spencer  and  Lord  Althorp  . . . 244 

96  Gainsborough,  Blue  Boy 246 

97  Constable,  Corn  Field,  Nat.  Gal.,  Lon.  .....  248 

98  Turner,  Fighting  Temeraire,  Nat.  Gal.,  Lon.  ....  250 

99  Burne-Jones,  Flamma  Vestalis  . . . . . . .252 

100  Leighton,  Helen  of  Troy  ........  255 

101  Watts,  Love  and  Death  ........  258 

102  West,  Peter  Denying  Christ,  Hampton  Court  ....  261 

103  Gilbert  Stuart,  Washington,  Boston  Mus.  ....  262 

104  Hunt,  Lute  Player  ...  263 

105  Eastman  Johnson,  Churning 265 

106  Inness,  Landscape  ........  267 

107  Winslow  Homer,  Undertow  .......  269 

108  Whistler,  The  White  Girl  . . . . . . .271 

109  Sargent,  “ Carnation  Lily,  Lily  Rose  ” .....  272 

no  Chase,  Alice,  Art  Institute,  Chicago  .....  274 


GENERAL  BIBLIOGRAPHY. 


(This  includes  the  leading  accessible  works  that  treat 
of  painting  in  general.  For  works  on  special  periods  or 
schools,  see  the  bibliographical  references  at  the  head  of 
each  chapter.  For  bibliography  of  individual  painters  con- 
sult, under  proper  names,  Champlin  and  Perkins’s  Cyclo- 
pedia, as  given  below.) 

Champlin  and  Perkins,  Cyclopedia  of  Painters  and  Paint- 
ings, New  York. 

Adeline,  Lexique  des  Termes  d' Art. 

Gazette  des  Beaux  Arts , Paris. 

Larousse,  Grand  Dictionnaire  Universel , Paris. 

L' Art,  Revue  hebdomadaire  illustree , Paris. 

Bryan,  Dictionary  of  Painters.  New  edition. 

Brockhaus,  Conversations- Lexikon. 

Meyer,  Allgemeines  Kunstler-Lexikon , Berlin. 

Muther,  History  of  Modern  Painting. 

Agincourt,  History  of  Art  by  its  Monuments. 

Bayet,  Precis  d' Histoire  de  l’ Art. 

Blanc,  Histoire  des  Peintres  de  toutes  les  Ecoles. 

Eastlake,  Materials  for  a History  of  Oil  Painting. 

Liibke,  History  of  Art,  trans.  by  Clarence  Cook. 

Reber,  History  of  Ancient  Art. 

Reber,  History  of  Mediceval  Art. 

Schnasse,  Geschichte  der  Bildeiiden  Kiinste. 

Girard,  La  Peinture  Antique. 

Viardot,  History  of  the  Painters  of  all  Schools. 

Williamson  (Ed.),  Handbooks  of  Great  Masters. 

Woltmann  and  Woermann,  History  of  Painting. 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


INTRODUCTION. 

The  origin  of  painting  is  unknown.  The  first  important 
records  of  this  art  are  met  with  in  Egypt ; but  before  the 
Egyptian  civilization  the  men  of  the  early  ages,  probably 
used  color  in  ornamentation  and  decoration,  and  they  cer- 
tainly scratched  the  outlines  of  men  and  animals  upon  bone 
and  slate.  Traces  of  this  rude  primitive  work  still  remain 
to  us  on  the  pottery,  weapons,  and  stone  implements  of  the 
cave-dwellers.  But  while  indicating  the  awakening  of  in- 
telligence in  early  man,  they  can  be  reckoned  with  as  art 
only  in  a slight  archaeological  way.  They  show  inclination 
rather  than  accomplishment — a wish  to  ornament  or  to 
represent,  with  only  a crude  knowledge  of  how  to  go 
about  it. 

The  first  aim  of  this  primitive  painting  was  undoubtedly 
decoration — the  using  of  colored  forms  for  color  and  form 
only,  as  shown  in  the  pottery  designs  or  cross-hatchings  on 
stone  knives  or  spear-heads.  The  second,  and  perhaps 
later  aim,  was  by  imitating  the  shapes  and  colors  of  men, 
animals,  and  the  like,  to  convey  an  idea  of  the  proportions 
and  characters  of  such  things.  An  outline  of  a cave-bear 
or  a mammoth  was  perhaps  the  cave-dweller’s  way  of  telling 
his  fellows  what  monsters  he  had  slain.  We  may  assume 
that  it  was  pictorial  record,  primitive  picture-written  his- 
tory. This  early  method  of  conveying  an  idea  is,  in  intent, 


XV111 


INTRODUCTION. 


substantially  the  same  as  the  later  hieroglyphic  writing  and 
historical  painting  of  the  Egyptians.  The  difference  be- 
tween  them  is  merely  one  of  development.  Thus  there  is 
an  indication  in  the  art  of  Primitive  Man  of  the  two  great 
departments  of  painting  existent  to-day. 


1.  Decorative  Painting. 

2.  Expressive  Painting. 

Pure  Decorative  Painting  is  not  usually  expressive  of  ideas 
other  than  those  of  rhythmical  line  and  harmonious  color. 
It  is  not  our  subject.  This  volume  treats  of  Expressive 
Painting  ; but  in  dealing  with  that  it  should  be  borne  in 
mind  that  Expressive  Painting  has  always  a more  or  less 
decorative  effect  accompanying  it,  and  that  must  be  spoken 
of  incidentally.  We  shall  presently  see  the  intermingling 
of  both  kinds  of  painting  in  the  art  of  ancient  Egypt — our 
first  inquiry. 


CHAPTER  I. 


EGYPTIAN  PAINTING. 

Books  Recommended  : Brugsch,  History  of  Egypt  under 
the  Pharaohs;  Budge,  Dwellers  on  the  Nile;  Duncker,  His- 
tory of  Antiquity  ; Egypt  Exploration  Fund  Memoirs ; Ely, 
Manual  of  Archceology ; Lepsius,  Denkmaler  aus  Aegypten 
und  Aethiopen  ; Maspero,  Life  in  A?icient  Egypt  and  Assyria  ; 
Maspero,  Guide  du  Visiteur  au  Musee  de  Boulaq  ; Maspero, 
Egyptian  Archceology ; Perrot  and  Chipiez,  History  of  Art  in 
Ancient  Egypt;  Wilkinson,  Manners  and  Customs  of  the  An- 
cient Egyptians . 

LAND  AND  PEOPLE:  Egypt,  as  Herodotus  has  said,  is  “the 
gift  of  the  Nile,”  one  of  the  latest  of  the  earth’s  geo- 
logical formations,  and  yet  one  of  the  earliest  countries  to 
be  settled  and  dominated  by  man.  It  consists  now,  as  in 
the  ancient  days,  of  the  valley  of  the  Nile,  bounded  on 
the  east  by  the  Arabian  mountains  and  on  the  west  by  the 
Libyan  desert.  Well-watered  and  fertile,  it  was  doubtless 
at  first  a pastoral  and  agricultural  country ; then,  by  its 
riverine  traffic,  a commercial  country,  and  finally,  by  con- 
quest, a land  enriched  with  the  spoils  of  warfare. 

Its  earliest  records  show  a strongly  established  monarchy. 
Dynasties  of  kings  called  Pharaohs  succeeded  one  another 
by  birth  or  conquest.  The  king  made  the  laws,  judged  the 
people,  declared  war,  and  was  monarch  supreme.  Next  to 
him  in  rank  came  the  priests,  who  were  not  only  in  the 
service  of  religion  but  in  that  of  the  state,  as  counsellors; 
secretaries,  and  the  like.  The  common  people,  with  true 
1 


2 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


Oriental  lack  of  individuality,  depending  blindly  on  leaders, 
were  little  more  than  the  servants  of  the  upper  classes. 

The  Egyptian  religion  existing  in  the  earliest  days  was 
a worship  of  the  personified  elements  of  nature.  Each 


FIG.  I. — HUNTING  IN  THE  MARSHES.  TOMB  OF  TI,  SACCARAH. 
(FROM  PERROT  AND  CHIPIEZ.) 


element  had  its  particular  controlling  god,  worshipped  as 
such.  Later  on  in  Egyptian  history  the  number  of  gods 
was  increased,  and  each  city  had  its  trinity  of  godlike  pro- 
tectors symbolized  by  the  propylaea  of  the  temples.  Future 
life  was  a certainty,  provided  that  the  Ka,  or  spirit,  did  not 
fall  a prey  to  Typhon,  the  God  of  Evil,  during  the  long  wait 


EGYPTIAN  PAINTING. 


3 


in  the  tomb  for  the  judgment-day.  The  belief  that  the 
spirit  rested  in  the  body  until  finally  transported  to  the  aaln 
fields  (the  Islands  of  the  Blest,  afterward  adopted  by  the 
Greeks)  was  one  reason  for  the  careful  preservation  of  the 
body  by  mummifying  processes.  Life  itself  was  not  more 
important  than  death.  Hence  the  imposing  ceremonies  of 
the  funeral  and  burial,  the  elaborate  richness  of  the  tomb 
and  its  wall  paintings.  Perhaps  the  first  Egyptian  art  arose 
through  religious  observance,  and  certainly  the  first  known 
to  us  was  sepulchral. 

ART  MOTIVES:  The  centre  of  the  Egyptian  system  was 
the  monarch  and  his  supposed  relatives,  the  gods.  They 
arrogated  to  themselves  the  chief  thought  of  life,  and  the 
aim  of  the  great  bulk  of  the  art  was  to  glorify  monarchy  or 
deity.  The  massive  buildings,  still  standing  to-day  in  ruins, 
were  built  as  the  dwelling-places  of  kings  or  the  sanctuaries 
of  gods.  The  towers  symbolized  deity,  the  sculptures  and 
paintings  recited  the  functional  duties  of  presiding  spirits, 
or  the  Pharaoh’s  looks  and  acts.  Almost  everything  about 
the  public  buildings  in  painting  and  sculpture  was  symbolic 
illustration,  picture-written  history — written  with  a chisel 
and  brush,  written  large  that  all  might  read.  There  was 
no  other  safe  way  of  preserving  record.  There  were  no 
books  ; the  papyrus  sheet,  used  extensively,  was  frail,  and 
the  Egyptians  evidently  wished  their  buildings,  carvings, 
and  paintings  to  last  into  eternity.  So  they  wrought  in 
and  upon  stone.  The  same  hieroglyphic  character  of  their 
papyrus  writings  appeared  cut  and  colored  on  the  palace 
walls,  and  above  them  and  beside  them  the  pictures  ran  as 
vignettes  explanatory  of  the  text.  In  a less  ostentatious  way 
the  tombs  perpetuated  history  in  a similar  manner,  reciting 
the  domestic  scenes  from  the  life  of  the  individual,  as  the 
temples  and  palaces  the  religious  and  monarchical  scenes. 

In  one  form  or  another  it  was  all  record  of  Egyptian  life, 
but  this  was  not  the  only  motive  of  their  painting.  The 


4 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


temples  and  palaces,  designed  to  shut  out  light  and  heat, 
were  long  squares  of  heavy  stone,  gloomy  as  the  cave 

from  which  their  plan  may 
have  originated.  Carving 
and  color  were  used  to 
brighten  and  enliven  the 
interior.  The  battles,  the 
judgment  scenes,  the  Pha- 
raoh playing  at  draughts 
with  his  wives,  the  religious 
rites  and  ceremonies,  were 
all  given  with  brilliant  ar- 
bitrary color,  surrounded 
oftentimes  by  bordering 
bands  of  green,  yellow,  and 
blue.  Color  showed  every- 
where from  floor  to  ceil- 
ing. Even  the  explanatory 
hieroglyphic  texts  ran  in 
colors,  lining  the  walls  and 
winding  around  the  cylin- 
ders of  stone.  The  lotus 
capitals,  the  frieze  and  architrave,  all  glowed  with  bright 
hues,  and  often  the  roof  ceiling  was  painted  in  blue  and 
studded  with  golden  stars. 

All  this  shows  a decorative  motive  in  Egyptian  painting, 
and  how  constantly  this  was  kept  in  view  may  be  seen  at 
times  in  the  arrangement  of  the  different  scenes,  the  large 
ones  being  placed  in  the  middle  of  the  wall  and  the  smaller 
ones  going  at  the  top  and  bottom,  to  act  as  a frieze  and 
dado.  There  were,  then,  two  leading  motives  for  Egyptian 
painting  ; (i)  History,  monarchical,  religious,  or  domestic  ; 
and  (2)  Decoration. 

TECHNICAL  METHODS:  Man  in  the  early  stages  of  civ- 
ilization comprehends  objects  more  by  line  than  by  color 


EGYPTIAN  PAINTING. 


5 


or  light.  The  figure  is  not  studied  in  itself,  but  in  its 
sun-shadow  or  silhouette.  The  Egyptian  hieroglyph  repre- 
sented objects  by  outlines  or  arbitrary  marks  and  conveyed 
a simple  meaning  without  circumlocution.  The  Egyptian 
painting  was  substantially  an  enlargement  of  the  hieroglyph. 
There  was  no  attempt  to  place  objects  in  the  setting  which 
they  hold  in  nature.  Perspective  and  light-and-shade  were 
disregarded.  Objects,  of  whatever  nature,  were  shown  in  flat 
profile.  In  the  human  figure  the  shoulders  were  square,  the 
hips  slight,  the  legs  and  arms  long,  the  feet  and  hands  flat. 
The  head,  legs,  and  arms  were  shown  in  profile,  while  the 
chest  and  eye  were  twisted  to  show  the  flat  front  view. 
There  are  only  one  or  two  full-faced  figures  among  the  re- 
mains of  Egyptian  painting.  After  the  outline  was  drawn 
the  enclosed  space  was  filled  in  with  plain  color.  In  the 
absence  of  high  light,  or  composed  groups,  prominence  was 
given  to  an  important  figure,  like  that  of  the  king,  by  mak- 
ing it  much  larger  than  the  other  figures.  This  may  be 
seen  in  any  of  the  battle-pieces  of  Rameses  II.,  in  which 
the  monarch  in  his  chariot  is  a giant  where  his  followers 
are  mere  pygmies.  In  the  absence  of  perspective,  receding 
figures  of  men  or  of  horses  were  given  by  multiplied  outlines 
of  legs,  or  heads,  placed  before,  or  after,  or  raised  above 
one  another.  Flat  water  was  represented  by  zigzag  lines, 
placed  as  it  were  upon  a map,  one  tree  symbolized  a forest, 
and  one  fortification  a town. 

These  outline  drawings  were  not  realistic  in  any  exact 
sense.  The  face  was  generally  expressionless,  the  figure, 
evidently  done  from  memory  or  pattern,  did  not  reveal  ana- 
tomical structure,  but  was  nevertheless  graceful,  and  in  the 
representation  of  animals  the  sense  of  motion  was  often 
given  with  much  truth.  The  color  was  usually  an  attempt 
at  nature,  though  at  times  arbitrary  or  symbolic,  as  in  the 
case  of  certain  gods  rendered  with  blue,  yellow,  or  green 
skins.  The  backgrounds  were  always  of  flat  color,  arbitrary 


6 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


in  hue,  and  decorative  only.  The  only  composition  was  a 
balance  by  numbers,  and  the  processional  scenes  rose  tier 
upon  tier  above  one  another  in  long  panels. 

Such  work  would  seem  almost  ludicrous  did  we  not  keep 
in  mind  its  reason  for  existence.  It  was,  first,  symbolic 
story-telling  art,  and  secondly,  architectural  decoration.  As 
a story-teller  it  was  effective  because  of  its  simplicity  and 
directness.  As  decoration,  the  repeated  expressionless  face 
and  figure,  the  arbitrary  color,  the  absence  of  perspective 


FIG.  3. — OFFERINGS  TO  THE  DEAD,  WALL  PAINTING,  EIGHTEE-k^H  DYNASTY. 
(FROM  PERROT  AND  CHIPIEZ.) 


were  not  inappropriate  then  nor  are  they  now.  Egyptian 
painting  never  was  free  from  the  decorative  motive.  Wall 


painting  was  little  more  than  an  adjunct  of  architecture,  and 
probably  grew  out  of  sculpture.  The  early  statues  were 
colored,  and  on  the  wall  the  chisel,  like  the  flint  of  Primitive 
Man,  cut  the  outline  of  the  figure.  At  first  only  this  cut  was 
filled  with  color,  producing  what  has  been  called  the  koil- 
anaglyphic.  In  the  final  stage  the  line  was  made  by  draw- 
ing with  chalk  or  coal  on  prepared  stucco,  and  the  color, 
mixed  with  gum-water  (a  kind  of  distemper),  was  applied  to 
the  whole  enclosed  space.  Substantially  the  same  method 
of  painting  was  used  upon  other  materials,  such  as  wood, 
mummy  cartonnage,  papyrus  ; and  in  all  its  thousands  of 
years  of  existence  Egyptian  painting  never  advanced  upon 
or  varied  to  any  extent  this  one  method  of  work. 

HISTORIC  PERIODS:  Egyptian  art  may  be  traced  back 
as  far  as  the  Third  or  Fourth  Memphitic  dynasty  of  kings. 
The  date  is  uncertain,  but  it  is  somewhere  near  3,500  b.c. 
The  seat  of  empire,  at  that  time,  was  located  at  Memphis 
in  Lower  Egypt,  and  it  is  among  the  remains  of  this 

Memphitic  Period  that  the  earliest  and  best  painting  is 
found.  In  fact,  all  Egyptian  art,  literature,  language,  civil- 
ization, seem  at  their  highest  point  of  perfection  in  the 
period  farthest  removed  from  us.  In  that  earliest  age  the 
finest  portrait  busts  were  cut,  and  the  painting,  found  chiefly 
in  the  tombs  and  on  the  mummy-cases,  was  the  attempted 
realistic  with  not  a little  of  spirited  individuality.  The 
figure  was  rather  short  and  squat,  the  face  a little  squarer 
than  the  conventional  type  afterward  adopted,  the  action 
better,  and  the  positions,  attitudes,  and  gestures  more 
truthful  to  local  characteristics.  The  domestic  scenes — 
hunting,  fishing,  tilling,  grazing — were  all  shown  in  the  one 
flat,  planeless,  shadowless  method  of  representation,  but 
with  better  drawing  and  color  and  more  variety  than 
appeared  later  on.  Still,  more  or  less  conventional  types 
were  used,  even  in  this  early  time,  and  continued  to  be  used 
all  through  Egyptian  history. 


8 


HISTORY  OF  I 


MINTING. 


The  Memphitic  Period  comes  down  to  the  eleventh  dy- 
nasty. In  the  fifteenth  dynasty  comes  the  invasion  of  the 
so-called  Hyksos,  or  Shepherd  Kings.  Little  is  known  of 
the  Hyksos,  and,  in  painting,  the  next  stage  is  the 

Theban  Period,  which  culminated  in  Thebes,  in  Upper 
Egypt,  with  Rameses  II.,  of  the  nineteenth  dynasty.  Paint- 
ing had  then  changed  somewhat  both  in  subject  and  char- 
acter. The  time  was  one  of  great  temple-  and  palace-build- 
ing, and,  though  the  painting  of  genre  subjects  in  tombs 
and  sepulchres  continued,  the  general  body  of  art  became 
more  monumental  and  subservient  to  architebture.  Paint- 
ing was  put  to  work  on  temple-  and  palace-walls,  depicting 
processional  scenes,  either  religious  or  monarchical,  and  vast 
in  extent.  The  figure,  too,  changed  slightly.  It  became 


FIG.  4. — VIGNETTE  ON  PAPYRUS,  LOUVRE.  (FROM  PERROT  AND  CHIPIEZ.) 


longer,  slighter,  with  a pronounced  nose,  thick  lips,  and 
long  eye.  From  constant  repetition,  rather  than  any  set 
rule  or  canon,  this  figure  grew  conventional,  and  was  re- 


EGYPTIAN  PAINTING. 


9 


produced  as  a type  in  a mechanical  and  unvarying  manner 
for  hundreds  of  years.  It  was,  in  fact,  only  a variation 
from  the  original  Egyptian  type  seen  in  the  tombs  of  the 
earliest  dynasties.  There  was  a great  quantity  of  art  pro- 
duced during  the  Theban  Period,  and  of  a graceful,  decora- 
tive character,  but  it  was  rather  monotonous  by  repetition 
and  filled  with  established  mannerisms.  The  Egyptian 
really  never  was  a free  worker,  never  an  artist  expressing 
himself  ; but,  for  his  day,  a skilled  mechanic  following  time- 
honored  example.  In  the 

Saitic  Period  the  seat  of  empire  was  once  more  in 
Lower  Egypt,  and  art  had  visibly  declined  with  the  waning 
power  of  the  country.  All  spontaneity  seemed  to  have 
passed  out  of  it,  it  was  repetition  of  repetition  by  poor 
workmen,  and  the  simplicity  and  purity  of  the  technic  were 
corrupted  by  foreign  influences.  With  the  Alexandrian 
epoch  Egyptian  art  came  in  contact  with  Greek  methods, 
and  grew  imitative  of  the  new  art,  to  the  detriment  of  its 
own  native  character.  Eventually  it  was  entirely  lost  in 
the  art  of  the  Greco-Roman  world.  It  was  never  other 
than  conventional,  produced  by  a method  almost  as  unvary- 
ing as  that  of  the  hieroglyphic  writing,  and  in  this  very 
respect  characteristic  and  reflective  of  the  unchanging 
Orientals.  Technically  it  had  its  shortcomings,  but  it  con- 
veyed the  proper  information  to  its  beholders  and  was  ser- 
viceable and  graceful  decoration  for  Egyptian  days. 

EXTANT  PAINTINGS:  The  temples,  palaces,  and  tombs  of  Egypt  still 
reveal  Egyptian  painting  in  almost  as  perfect  a state  as  when  originally 
executed  ; the  Ghizeh  Museum  has  many  fine  examples  ; and  there  are 
numerous  examples  in  the  museums  at  Turin,  Paris,  Berlin,  London,  New 
York,  and  Boston.  An  interesting  collection  belongs  to  the  New  York 
Historical  Society,  and  some  of  the  latest  “finds”  of  the  Egypt  Explora- 
tion Fund  are  in  the  Boston  Museum. 


CHAPTER  II. 


CHALDvEO-ASSYRIAN  PAINTING. 

Books  Recommended  : Babelon,  Manual  of  Oriental  An- 
tiquities ; Botta,  Monument  de  Ninive  j Budge,  Babylonian 
Life  and  History ; Duncker,  History  of  Antiquity ; Layard, 
Nineveh  and  its  Remains ; Layard,  Discoveries  Among  Ruins 
of  Nineveh  and  Babylon;  Lenormant,  Manual  of  the  Ancient 
History  of  the  East;  Loftus,  Travels  in  Chaldcea  and  Susiana  ; 
Maspero,  Life  in  Ancient  Egypt  and  Assyria;  Perrot  and 
Chipiez,  History  of  Art  in  Chaldcea  and  Assyria;  Place, 
Ninive  et  I’Assyrie ; Sayce,  Assyria:  Lts  Palaces , Priests , and 
People. 

TIGRIS  - EUPHRATES  CIVILIZATION:  In  many  respects  the 
civilization  along  the  Tigris  - Euphrates  was  like  that 
along  the  Nile.  Both  valleys  were  settled  by  primitive 
peoples,  who  grew  rapidly  by  virtue  of  favorable  climate 
and  soil,  and  eventually  developed  into  great  nations  headed 
by  kings  absolute  in  power.  The  king  was  the  state  in 
Egypt,  and  in  Assyria  the  monarch  was  even  more  domi- 
nant and  absolute.  For  the  Pharaohs  shared  architecture, 
painting,,  and  sculpture  with  the  gods  ; but  the  Sargonids 
seem  to  have  arrogated  the  most  of  these  things  to  them- 
selves alone. 

Religion  was  perhaps  as  real  in  Assyria  as  in  Egypt,  but 
it  was  less  apparent  in  art.  Certain  genii,  called  gods  or 
demons,  appear  in  the  bas-reliefs,  but  it  is  not  yet  settled 
whether  they  represent  gods  or  merely  legendary  heroes  or 
monsters  of  fable.  There  was  no  great  demonstration  of 
religion  by  form  and  color,  as  in  Egypt.  The  Assyrians 


CHALD^O-ASSYRIAN  PAINTING.  1 1 

were  Semites,  and  religion  with  them  was  more  a matter 
of  the  spirit  than  the  senses — an  image  in  the  mind  rather 
than  an  image  in  metal  or  stone.  The  temple  was  not  elo- 
quent with  the  actions  and  deeds  of  the  gods,  and  even  the 
tomb,  that  fruitful  source  of  art  in  Egypt,  was  in  Chaldaea 
undecorated  and  in  Assyria  unknown.  No  one  knows  what 
the  Assyrians  did  with  their  dead,  unless  they  carried  them 
back  to  the  fatherland  of  the  race,  the  Persian  Gulf  region, 
as  the  native  tribes  of  Mesopotamia  do  to  this  day. 

ART  MOTIVES:  As  in  Egypt,  there  were  two  motives  for 
art — illustration  and  decoration.  Religion,  as  we  have  seen, 
hardly  obtained  at  all.  The  king  attracted  the  greatest 
attention.  The  countless  bas-reliefs,  cut  on  soft  stone  slabs, 
were  pages  from  the  history  of  the  monarch  in  peace  and 
war,  in  council,  in  the  chase,  or  in  processional  rites.  Be- 
side him  and  around  him  his  officers  came  in  for  a share  of 
the  background  glory.  Occasionally  the  common  people 
had  representations  of  their  lives  and  their  pursuits,  but 
the  main  subject  of  all  the  val- 
ley art  was  the  king  and  his 
doings.  Sculpture  and  paint- 
ing were  largely  illustrations 
accompanying  a history  writ- 
ten in  the  ever-present  cunei- 
form characters. 

But,  while  serving  as  history, 
like  the  picture-writings  of  the 
Egyptians,  this  illustration  was 
likewise  decoration,  and  was 
designed  with  that  end  in 
view.  Rows  upon  rows  of 
partly  colored  bas-reliefs  were  arranged  like  a dado  along 
the  palace-wall,  and  above  them  wall-paintings,  or  glazed 
tiles  in  patterns,  carried  out  the  color  scheme.  Almost  all 
of  the  color  has  now  disappeared,  but  it  must  have  been 


(from  perrot  and  chipiez.) 


12 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


brilliant  at  one  time,  and  was  doubtless  in  harmony  with  the 
architecture.  Both  painting  and  sculpture  were  subordi- 
nate to  and  dependent  upon  architecture.  Palace-building 


FIG.  6. — ENAMELLED  BRICK.  KHORSABAD.  ( FROM  PERROT  AND  CHIPIEZ.) 


was  the  chief  pursuit,  and  the  other  arts  were  called  in 
mainly  as  adjuncts — ornamental  records  of  the  king  who 
built. 

THE  TYPE,  FORM,  COLOR:  There  were  only  two  distinct 
faces  in  Assyrian  art — one  with  and  one  without  a beard. 
Neither  of  them  was  a portrait  except  as  attributes  or 
inscriptions  designated.  The  type  was  unendingly  repeated. 
Women  appeared  in  only  one  or  two  isolated  cases,  and 
even  these  are  doubtful.  The  warrior,  a strong,  coarse- 
membered,  heavily  muscled  creation,  with  a heavy,  expres- 
sionless, Semitic  face,  appeared  everywhere.  The  figure 
was  placed  in  profile,  with  eye  and  bust  twisted  to  show 
the  front  view,  and  the  long  feet  projected  one  beyond  the 
other,  as  in  the  Nile  pictures.  This  was  the  Assyrian  ideal 
of  strength,  dignity,  and  majesty,  established  probably  in 
the  early  ages,  and  repeated  for  centuries  with  few  char- 
acteristic variations.  The  figure  was  usually  given  in  mo- 
tion, walking,  or  riding,  and  had  little  of  that  grace  seen  in 
Egyptian  painting,  but  in  its  place  a great  deal  of  rude 


CHALD^EO-ASSYRIAN  PAINTING. 


13 


strength.  In  modelling,  the  human  form  was  not  so  know- 
ingly rendered  as  the  animal.  The  long  Eastern  clothing 
probably  prevented  the  close  study  of  the  figure.  This  fail- 
ure in  anatomical  exactness  was  balanced  in  part  by  min- 
ute details  in  the  dress  and  accessories,  productive  of  a rich 
ornamental  effect. 

Hard  stone  was  not  found  in  the  Mesopotamian  regions. 
Temples  were  built  of  burnt  brick,  bas-reliefs  were  made 
upon  alabaster  slabs  and  heightened  by  coloring,  and  paint- 
ing was  largely  upon  tiles,  with  mineral  paints,  afterward 
glazed  by  fire.  These  glazed  brick  or  tiles,  with  figured 
designs,  were  fixed  upon  the  walls,  arches,  and  archivolts 
by  bitumen  mortar,  and  made  up  the  first  mosaics  of  which 
we  have  record.  There  was  a further  painting  upon  plaster 
in  distemper,  of  which  some  few  traces  remain.  It  did 
not  differ  in  design  from  the  bas-reliefs  or  the  tile  mo- 
saics. 

The  subjects  used  were  the  Assyrian  type,  shown  some- 
what slighter  in  painting  than  in  sculpture,  animals,  birds, 
and  other  objects  ; but  they  were  obviously  not  attempts 
at  nature.  The  color  was  arbitrary,  not  natural,  and  there 
was  little  perspective,  light-and-shade,  or  relief.  Heavy 
outline  bands  of  color  appeared  about  the  object,  and  the 
prevailing  hues  were  yellow  and  blue.  There  was  perhaps 
less  symbolism  and  more  direct  representation  in  Assyria 
than  in  Egypt.  There  was  also  more  feeling  for  perspec- 
tive and  space,  as  shown  in  such  objects  as  water  and  in 
the  mountain  landscapes  of  the  late  bas-reliefs  ; but,  in  the 
main,  there  was  no  advance  upon  Egypt.  There  was  a 
difference  which  was  not  necessarily  a development.  Paint- 
ing, as  we  know  the  art  to-day,  was  not  practised  in  Chaldaea- 
Assyria.  It  was  never  free  from  a servitude  to  architecture 
and  sculpture ; it  was  hampered  by  conventionalities  ; and 
the  painter  was  more  artisan  than  artist,  having  little  free- 
dom or  individuality. 


i4 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


HISTORIC  PERIODS:  Chaldsea,  of  unknown  antiquity,  with 
Babylon  its  capital,  is  accounted  the  oldest  nation  in  the 
Tigris-Euphrates  valley,  and,  so  far  as  is  known,  it  was  an 
original  nation  producing  an  original  art.  Its  sculpture 
(especially  in  the  Tello  heads),  and  presumably  its  painting, 
were  more  realistic  and  individual  than  any  other  in  the 
valley.  Assyria  coming  later,  and  the  heir  of  Chaldaea, 
was  the 

Second  Empire : There  are  two  distinct  periods  of  this 
Second  Empire,  the  first  lasting  from  1,400  b.c.,  down  to 
about  900  b.c.,  and  in  art  showing  a great  profusion  of 
bas-reliefs.  The  second  closed  about  625  b.  c.,  and  in  art 


produced  much  glazed -tile  work  and  a more  elaborate 
sculpture  and  painting.  After  this  the  Chaldaean  provinces 
gained  the  ascendency  again,  and  Babylon,  under  Nebuchad- 
nezzar, became  the  first  city  of  Asia.  But  the  new  Babylon 
did  not  last  long.  It  fell  before  Cyrus  and  the  Persians 
536  b.c.  Again,  as  in  Egypt,  the  earliest  art  appears  the 


PERSIAN  PAINTING. 


IS 


purest  and  the  simplest,  and  the  years  of  Chaldaeo-Assyrian 
history  known  to  us  carry  a record  of  change  rather  than 
of  progress  in  art. 

ART  REMAINS : The  most  valuable  collections  of  Chaldgeo-Assyrian 
art  are  to  be  found  in  the  Louvre  and  the  British  Museum.  The  other 
large  museums  of  Europe  have  collections  in  this  department,  but  all  of 
them  combined  are  little  compared  with  the  treasures' that  still  lie  buried 
in  the  mounds  of  the  Tigris-Euphrates  valley.  Excavations  have  been 
made  at  Mugheir,  Warka,  Khorsabad,  Kouyunjik,  and  elsewhere,  but 
many  difficulties  have  thus  far  rendered  systematic  work  impossible.  The 
complete  history  of  Chaldseo- Assyria  and  its  art  has  yet  to  be  written. 

PERSIAN  PAINTING. 


Books  Recommended  : As  before  cited,  Babelon,  Duncker, 
Lenormant,  Ely  ; Dieulafoy.  L' Art  Antique  de  la  Perse  ; 
Flandin  et  Coste,  Voyage  en  Perse  j Justi,  Geschichte  des  alten 
Persiens  ; Perrot  and  Chipiez,  History  of  Aid  in  Persia. 

HISTORY  AND  ART  MOTIVES:  The  Medes  and  Persians  were 
the  natural  inheritors  of  Assyrian  civilization,  but  they  did 
not  improve  their  birthright.  The  Medes  soon  lost  their 
power.  Cyrus  conquered  them,  and  established  the  powerful 
Persian  monarchy  upheld  for  two  hundred  years  by  Cam- 
byses,  Darius,  and  Xerxes.  Substantially  the  same  condi- 
tions surrounded  the  Persians  as  the  Assyrians — that  is,  so 
far  as  art  production  was  concerned.  Their  conceptions  of 
life  were  similar,  and  their  use  of  art  was  for  historic  illus- 
tration of  kingly  doings  and  ornamental  embellishment  of 
kingly  palaces.  Both  sculpture  and  painting  were  acces- 
sories of  architecture. 

Of  Median  art  nothing  remains.  The  Persians  left  the 
record,  but  it  was  not  wholly  of  their  own  invention,  nor 
was  it  very  extensive  or  brilliant.  It  had  little  originality 
about  it,  and  was  really  only  an  echo  of  Assyria.  The 


1 6 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


sculptors  and  painters  copied  their  Assyrian  predecessors, 
repeating  at  Persepolis  what  had  been  better  told  at  Nin- 
eveh. 

TYPES  AND  TECHNIC:  The  same  subjects,  types,  and  tech- 
nical methods  in  bas-relief,  tile,  and  painting  on  plaster  were 
followed  under  Darius  as  under  Shalmanezer.  But  the  imi- 
tation was  not  so  good  as  the  original.  The  warrior,  the 


FIG.  8 — LIONS’  FRIEZE,  SUSA.  (FROM  PERROT  AND  CHIPIEZ.) 

winged  monsters,  the  animals  all  lost  something  of  their  air 
of  brutal  defiance  and  their  strength  of  modelling.  Heroes 
still  walked  in  procession  along  the  bas-reliefs  and  glazed 
tiles,  but  the  figure  was  smaller,  more  effeminate,  the  hair 
and  beard  were  not  so  long,  the  drapery  fell  in  slightly 
indicated  folds  at  times,  and  there  was  a profusion  of  orna- 
mental detail.  Some  of  this  detail  and  some  modifications 
in  the  figure  showed  the  influence  of  foreign  nations  other 
than  the  Greek  ; but,  in  the  main,  Persian  art  followed  in  the 
footsteps  of  Assyrian  art.  It  was  the  last  reflection  of 


PHOENICIAN,  CYPRIOTE,  AND  ASIA  MINOR. 


7 


Mesopotamian  splendor.  For  with  the  conquest  of  Persia 
by  Alexander  the  book  of  expressive  art  in  that  valley  was 
closed,  and,  under  Islam,  it  remains  closed  to  this  day. 

ART  REMAINS : Persian  painting  is  something  about  which  little  is 
known  because  little  remains.  The  Louvre  contains  some  reconstructed 
friezes  made  in  mosaics  of  stamped  brick  and  square  tile,  showing  figures 
of  lions  and  a number  of  archers.  The  coloring  is  particularly  rich,  and 
may  give  some  idea  of  Persian  pigments.  Aside  from  the  chief  museums 
of  Europe  the  bulk  of  Persian  art  is  still  seen  half-buried  in  the  ruins  of 
Persepolis  and  elsewhere. 


PHCENICIAN,  CYPRIOTE,  AND  ASIA  MINOR  PAINTING. 

Books  Recommended  : As  before  cited,  Babelon,  Duncker, 
Ely,  Girard,  Lenormant ; Cesnola,  Cyprus  ; Cesnola,  Cypriote 
Antiquities  in  Metropolitan  Museum  of  Art ; Kenrick,  Phoeni- 
cia ; Movers,  Die  Phonizier  j Perrot  and  Chipiez,  History  of 
Art  in  Phoenicia  and  Cyprus  ; Perrot  and  Chipiez,  History  of 
Art  in  Sardinia,  fudea,  Syria  and  Asia  Minor ; Perrot  and 
Chipiez,  History  of  Art  in  Phrygia , Lydia , etc. ; Renan,  Mis- 
sion de  Phenicie. 

THE  TRADING  NATIONS:  The  coast-lying  nations  of  the 
Eastern  Mediterranean  were  hardly  original  or  creative 
nations  in  a large  sense.  They  were  at  different  times  the 
conquered  dependencies  of  Egypt,  Assyria,  Persia,  Greece, 
and  their  lands  were  but  bridges  over  which  armies  passed 
from  east  to  west  or  from  west  to  east.  Located  on  the 
Mediterranean  between  the  great  civilizations  of  antiquity 
they  naturally  adapted  themselves  to  circumstances,  and 
became  the  middlemen,  the  brokers,  traders,  and  carriers  of 
the  ancient  world.  Their  lands  were  not  favorable  to  agri- 
culture, but  their  sea-coasts  rendered  commerce  easy  and 
lucrative.  They  made  a kingdom  of  the  sea,  and  their  means 
of  livelihood  were  gathered  from  it.  There  is  no  record 
that  the  Egyptians  ever  traversed  the  Mediterranean,  the 
2 


1 8 HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 

Assyrians  were  not  sailors,  the  Greeks  had  not  yet  arisen, 
and  so  probably  Phoenicia  and  her  neighbors  had  matters 

their  own  way.  Colonies  and 
trading  stations  were  estab- 
lished at  Cyprus,  Carthage, 
Sardinia,  the  Greek  islands, 
and  the  Greek  mainland,  and 
not  only  Eastern  goods  but 
Eastern  ideas  were  thus  car- 
ried to  the  West. 

Politically,  socially,  and  re- 
ligiously these  small  middle 
nations  were  inconsequential. 
They  simply  adapted  their 
politics  or  faith  to  the  nation 
that  for  the  time  had  them 
under  its  heel.  What  semi- 
original religion  they  pos- 
sessed was  an  amalgamation 
of  the  religions  of  other  na- 
tions, and  their  gods  of  bronze, 
terra-cotta,  and  enamel  were 
irreverently  sold  in  the  mar- 
ket like  any  other  produce. 

AET  MOTIVES  AND  METHODS:  Building,  carving,  and  paint- 
ing were  practised  among  the  coastwise  nations,  but  upon 
no  such  extensive  scale  as  in  either  Egypt  or  Assyria.  The 
mere  fact  that  they  were  people  of  the  sea  rather  than  of 
the  land  precluded  extensive  or  concentrated  development. 
Politically  Phoenicia  was  divided  among  five  cities,  and 
her  artistic  strength  was  distributed  in  a similar  manner. 
Such  art  as  was  produced  showed  the  religious  and  deco- 
rative motives,  and  in  its  spiritless  materialistic  make-up,  the 
commercial  motive.  It  was  at  the  best  a hybrid,  mongrel 
art,  borrowed  from  many  sources  and  distributed  to  many 


FIG.  9.  — PAINTED  HEAD  FROM  EDESSA. 
(FROM  PERROT  AND  CHIPIEZ.) 


PHOENICIAN,  CYPRIOTE,  AND  ASIA  MINOR  1 9 

points  of  the  compass.  At  onetime  it  had  a strong  Assyrian 
cast,  at  another  an  Egyptian  cast,  and  after  Greece  arose  it 
accepted  a retroactive  influence  from  there. 

It  is  impossible  to  characterize  the  Phoenician  type,  and 
even  the  Cypriote  type,  though  more  pronounced,  varies  so 
with  the  different  influences  that  it  has  no  very  striking 
individuality.  Technically  both  the  Phoenician  and  Cypriote 
were  fair  workmen  in  bronze  and  stone,  and  doubtless 
taught  many  technical  methods  to  the  early  Greeks,  besides 
making  known  to  them  those  deities  afterward  adopted 
under  the  names  of  Aphrodite,  Adonis,  and  Heracles,  and 
familiarizing  them  with  the  art  forms  of  Egypt  and  Assyria. 

As  for  painting,  there  was  undoubtedly  figured  decora- 
tion upon  walls  of  stone  and  plaster,  but  there  is  not  enough 
left  to  us  from  all  the  small  nations  like  Phoenicia,  Judea, 
Cyprus,  and  the  kingdoms  of  Asia  Minor,  put  together,  to 
patch  up  a disjointed  history.  The  first  lands  to  meet  the 
spoiler,  their  very  ruins  have  perished.  All  that  there  is  of 


FIG.  IO. — CYPRIOTE  VASE  DECORATION. 
(FROM  PERROT  AND  CHIPIEZ.) 


painting  comes  to  us  in  broken  potteries  and  color  traces 
on  statuary.  The  remains  of  sculpture  and  architecture 
are  of  course  better  preserved.  None  of  this  intermediate 
art  holds  much  rank  by  virtue  of  its  inherent  worth.  It  is 


20 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


its  influence  upon  the  West — the  ideas,  subjects,  and  meth- 
ods it  imparted  to  the  Greeks — that  gives  it  importance  in 
art  history. 

ART  REMAINS:  In  painting  chiefly  the  vases  in  the  Metropolitan 
Museum,  New  York,  the  Louvre,  British  and  Berlin  Museums.  These 
give  a poor  and  incomplete  idea  of  the  painting  in  Asia  Minor,  Phoenicia 
and  her  colonies.  The  terra-cottas,  figurines  in  bronze,  and  sculptures  can 
be  studied  to  more  advantage.  The  best  collection  of  Cypriote  antiquities 
is  in  the  Metropolitan  Museum,  New  York.  A new  collection  of  Judaic 
art  has  been  recently  opened  in  the  Louvre. 


CHAPTER  III. 


GREEK  PAINTING. 

Books  Recommended  : Baumeister,  Denkmaler  des  klas- 
sischen  Altertums — article  “ Malerei ; ” Birch,  History  of  An- 
cient Pottery  ; Brunn,  Geschichte  der  griechischen  Kilns  tier j 
Collignon,  Mythologie  figuree  de  la  Grece  j Collignon,  Manuel 
d’ Archaeologie  Grecque  ; Cros  et  Henry,  K Encaustique  et  les 
autres procedes  de  Peinture  chez  les  Anciens  ; Girard,  La  Pein- 
ture  Antique ; Murray,  Handbook  of  Greek  Archceology ; 
Overbeck,  Antiken  Schriftquellen  zur  geschichte  der  bildenen 
Kiinste  bie  den  Griechen ; Perrot  and  Chipiez,  History  of 
Art  in  Greece ; Woerman,  Die  Landschaft  in  der  Kunst  der 
antiken  Volker ; see  also  books  on  Etruscan  and  Roman 
painting. 

GREECE  AND  THE  GREEKS:  The  origin  of  the  Greek  race  is 
not  positively  known.  It  is  reasonably  supposed  that  the 
early  settlers  in  Greece  came  from  the  region  of  Asia 
Minor,  either  across  the  Hellespont  or  the  sea,  and  popu- 
lated the  Greek  islands  and  the  mainland.  When  this  was 
done  has  been  matter  of  much  conjecture.  The  early  his- 
tory is  lost,  but  art  remains  show  that  in  the  period  before 
Homer  the  Greeks  were  an  established  race  with  habits 
and  customs  distinctly  individual.  Egyptian  and  Asiatic 
influences  are  apparent  in  their  art  at  this  early  time,  but 
there  is,  nevertheless,  the  mark  of  a race  peculiarly  apart 
from  all  the  races  of  the  older  world. 

The  development  of  the  Greek  people  was  probably 
helped  by  favorable  climate  and  soil,  by  commerce  and  con- 
quest, by  republican  institutions  and  political  faith,  by 


22 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


freedom  of  mind  and  of  body  ; but  all  these  together  are  not 
sufficient  to  account  for  the  keenness  of  intellect,  the  purity 
of  taste,  and  the  skill  in  accomplishment  which  showed  in 
every  branch  of  Greek  life.  The  cause  lies  deeper  in  the 
fundamental  make-up  of  the  GreelF  mind,  and  its  eternal 
aspiration  toward  mental,  moral,  and  physical  ideals.  Per- 
fect mind,  perfect  body,  perfect  conduct  in  this  world  were 
sought-for  ideals.  The  Greeks  aspired  to  completeness. 
The  course  of  education  and  race  development  trained 
them  physically  as  athletes  and  warriors,  mentally  as  phi- 
losophers, law-makers,  poets,  artists,  morally  as  heroes 
whose  lives  and  actions  emulated  those  of  the  gods,  and 
were  almost  perfect  for  this  world. 

ART  MOTIVES:  Neither  the  monarchy  nor  the  priesthood 
commanded  the  services  of  the  artist  in  Greece,  as  in  As- 
syria and  Egypt.  There  was  no  monarch  in  an  oriental 
sense,  and  the  chosen  leaders  of  the  Greeks  never,  until  the 
late  days,  arrogated  art  to  themselves.  It  was  something 
for  all  the  people. 

In  religion  there  was  a pantheon  of  gods  established  and 
worshipped  from  the  earliest  ages,  but  these  gods  were  more 
like  epitomes  of  Greek  ideals  than  spiritual  beings.  They 
were  the  personified  virtues  of  the  Greeks,  exemplars  of 
perfect  living  ; and  in  worshipping  them  the  Greek  was  really 
worshipping  order,  conduct,  repose,  dignity,  perfect  life. 
The  gods  and  heroes,  as  types  of  moral  and  physical  qual- 
ities, were  continually  represented  in  an  allegorical  or 
legendary  manner.  Athene  represented  noble  warfare, 
Zeus  was  majestic  dignity  and  power,  Aphrodite  love, 
Phoebus  song,  Nike  triumph,  and  all  the  lesser  gods, 
nymphs,  and  fauns  stood  for  beauties  of  nature  or  of  life. 
The  great  bulk  of  Greek  architecture,  sculpture,  and  paint- 
ing was  put  forth  to  honor  these  gods  or  heroes,  and  by  so 
doing  the  artist  repeated  the  national  ideals  and  honored 
himself.  The  first  motive  of  Greek  art,  then,  was  to  praise 


GREEK  PAINTING. 


23 


Hellas  and  the  Hellenic  view  of  life.  In  part  it  was  a re- 
ligious motive,  but  with  little  of  that  spiritual  significance 
and  belief  which  ruled  in  Egypt,  and  later  on  in  Italy. 

A second  and  ever-present  motive  in  Greek  painting  was 
decoration.  This  appears  in  the  tomb  pottery  of  the  earli- 


est ages,  and  was  carried  on  down  to  the  latest  times.  Vase 
painting,  wall  painting,  tablet  and  sculpture  painting  were 
all  done  with  a decorative  motive  in  view.  Even  the  easel 
or  panel  pictures  had  some  decorative  effect  about  them, 
though  they  were  primarily  intended  to  convey  ideas  other 
than  those  of  form  and  color. 

SUBJECTS  AND  METHODS:  The  gods  and  heroes,  their  lives 
and  adventures,  formed  the  early  subjects  of  Greek  painting. 


24 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


Certain  themes  taken  from  the  “Iliad  ” and  the  “Odyssey” 
were  as  frequently  shown  as,  afterward,  the  Annunciations 
in  Italian  painting.  The  traditional  subjects,  the  Centaurs 
and  Lapiths,  the  Amazon  war,  Theseus  and  Ariadne,  Perseus 
and  Andromeda,  were  frequently  depicted.  Humanity  and 
actual  Greek  life  came  in  for  its  share.  Single  figures,  still- 
lif e,  genre,  caricature,  all  were  shown,  and  as  painting  neared 
the  Alexandrian  age  a semi-realistic  portraiture  came  into 
vogue. 

The  materials  employed  by  the  Greeks  and  their  methods 
of  work  are  somewhat  difficult  to  ascertain,  because  there 
are  few  Greek  pictures,  except  those  on  the  vases,  left  to 
us.  ’ From  the  confusing  accounts  of  the  ancient  writers, 
the  vases,  some  Greek  slabs  in  Italy,  and  the  Roman  paint- 
ings imitative  of  the  Greek,  we  may  gain  a general  idea. 
The  early  Greek  work  was  largely  devoted  to  pottery  and 
tomb  decoration,  in  which  much  in  manner  and  method  was 
borrowed  from  Asia,  Phoenicia,  and  Egypt.  Later  on,  paint- 
ing appeared  in  flat  outline  on  stone  or  terra-cotta  slabs, 
sometimes  representing  processional  scenes,  as  in  Egypt, 
and  doubtless  done  in  a hybrid  fresco-work  similar  to  the 
Egyptian  method.  Wall  paintings  were  done  in  frbsco  and 
distemper,  probably  upon  the  walls  themselves,  and  also 
upon  panels  afterward  let  into  the  wall.  Encaustic  paint- 
ing (color  mixed  with  wax  upon  the  panel  and  fused  with  a 
hot  spatula)  came  in  with  the  Sikyonian  school.  It  is  pos- 
sible that  the  oil  medium  and  canvas  were  known,  but  not 
probable  that  either  was  ever  used  extensively. 

There  is  no  doubt  about  the  Greeks  being  expert  draughts- 
men, though  this  does  not  appear  until  late  in  history.  They 
knew  the  outlines  well,  and  drew  them  with  force  and  grace. 
That  they  modelled  in  strong  relief  is  more  questionable. 
Light-and-shade  was  certainly  employed  in  the  figure,  but 
not  in  any  modern  way.  Perspective  in  both  figures  and  land- 
scape was  used  ; but  the  landscape  was  at  first  symbolic  and 


GREEK  PAINTING. 


25 


rarely  got  beyond  a decorative  background  for  the  figure. 
Greek  composition  we  know  little  about,  but  may  infer  that 
it  was  largely  a series  of  balances,  a symmetrical  adjustment 
of  objects  to  fill  a given  space  with  not  very  much  freedom 
allowed  to  the  artist.  In  atmosphere,  sunlight,  color,  and 
those  peculiarly  sensuous  charms  that  belong  to  painting, 
there  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  the  Greeks  approached 
the  moderns.,  Their  interest  was  chiefly  centred  in  the 
human  figure.  Landscape,  with  its  many  beauties,  was 
reserved  for  modern  hands  to  disclose.  Color  was  used 
in  abundance,  without  doubt,  but  it  was  probably  limited  to 
the  leading  hues,  with  little  of  that  refinement  or  delicacy 
known  in  painting  to-day. 

ART  HISTORY:  For  the  history  of  Greek  painting  we  have 
to  rely  upon  the  words  of  Aristotle,  Plutarch,  Pliny,  Quin- 
tilian, Lucian,  Cicero,  Pausanias.  Their  accounts  appear  to 
be  partly  substantiated  by  the  vase  paintings,  and  such  few 
slabs  and  Roman  frescos  as  remain  to  us.  There  is  no 
consecutive  narrative.  The  story  of  painting  originating 
from  a girl  seeing  the  wall-silhouette  of  her  lover  and  fill- 
ing it  in  with  color,  and  the  conjecture  of  painting  having 
developed  from  embroidery  work,  have  neither  of  them  a 
foundation  in  fact.  The  earliest  settlers  of  Greece  probably 
learned  painting  from  the  PJicenicLans,  and  employed  it, 
after  the  Egyptian,  Assyrian,  and  Phoenician  manner,  on 
pottery,  terra-cotta  slabs,  and  rude  sculpture.  It  developed 
slower  than  sculpture  perhaps  ; but  were  there  anything  of 
importance  left  to  judge  from,  we  should  probably  find  that 
it  developed  in  much  the  same  manner  as  sculpture.  Down 
to  500  b.c.  there  was  little  more  than  outline  filled  in  with 
flat  monochromatic  paint  and  with  a decorative  effect  sim- 
ilar, perhaps,  to  that  of  the  vase  paintings.  After  that  date 
come  the  more  important  names  of  artists  mentioned  by 
the  ancient  writers.  It  is  difficult  to  assign  these  artists 
to  certain  periods  or  schools,  owing  to  the  insufficient 


26 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


Greek  painting,  because  perhaps  he  was  one  of  the  first  im- 
portant painters  in  Greece  proper.  He  seems  to  have  been 
a good  outline  draughtsman,  producing  figures  in  profile, 
with  little  attempt  at  relief,  perspective,  or  light-and-shade. 
His  colors  were  local  tones,  but  probably  more  like  nature 
and  more  varied  than  anything  in  Egyptian  painting.  Land- 
scapes, buildings,  and  the  like,  were  given  in  a symbolic  man- 
ner. Portraiture  was  a generalization,  and  in  figure  corn- 


knowledge  we  have  about  them.  The  following  classifica- 
tions and  assignments  may,  therefore,  in  some  instances,  be 
questioned. 

OLDER  ATTIC  SCHOOL:  The  first  painter  of  rank  was  Pol- 
ygnotus  (fl.  475-455  b.c.),  sometimes  called  the  founder  of 


FIG.  12.— MUSE  OF  CORTONA,  CORTONA  MUSEUM. 


GREEK  PAINTING. 


27 


positions  the  names  of  the  principal  characters  were  written 
near  them  for  purposes  of  identification.  The  most  important 
works  of  Polygnotus  were  the  wall  paintings  for  the  Assem- 
bly Room  of  the  Knidians  at  Delphi.  The  subjects  related 
to  the  Trojan  War  and  the  adventures  of  Ulysses. 

Opposed  to  this  flat,  unrelieved  style  was  the  work  of  a 
follower,  Agatharchos  of  Samos  (fl.  end  of  fifth  century 
b.c.).  He  was  a scene-painter,  and  by  the  necessities  of  his 
craft  was  led  toward  nature.  Stage  effect  required  a study 
of  perspective,  variation  of  light,  and  a knowledge  of  the 
laws  of  optics.  The  slight  outline  drawing  of  his  predecessor 
was  probably  superseded  by  effective  masses  to  create  illu- 
sion. This  was  a distinct  advance  toward  nature.  Apollo- 
dorus  (fl.  end  of  fifth  century  b.c.)  applied  the  principles  of 
Agatharchos  to  figures.  According  to  Plutarch,  he  was  the 
first  to  discover  variation  in  the  shade  of  colors,  and,  ac- 
cording to  Pliny,  the  first  master  to  paint  objects  as  they 
appeared  in  nature.  He  had  the  title  of  skicigraphos  (shadow- 
painter),  and  possibly  gave  a semi-natural  background  with 
perspective.  This  was  an  improvement,  but  not  a perfec- 
tion. It  is  not  likely  that  the  backgrounds  were  other  than 
conventional  settings  for  the  figure.  Even  these  were  not 
at  once  accepted  by  the  painters  of  the  period,  but  were 
turned  to  profit  in  the  hands  of  the  followers. 

After  the  Peloponnesian  Wars  the  art  of  painting  seems 
to  have  flourished  elsewhere  than  in  Athens,  owing  to  the 
Athenian  loss  of  supremacy.  Other  schools  sprang  up  in 
various  districts,  and  one  to  call  for  considerable  mention 
by  the  ancient  writers  was  the 

IONIAN  SCHOOL,  which  in  reality  had  existed  from  the 
sixth  century.  The  painters  of  this  school  advanced  upon 
the  work  of  Apollodorus  as  regards  realistic  effect.  Zeuxis, 
whose  fame  was  at  its  height  during  the  Peloponnesian 
Wars,  seems  to  have  regarded  art  as  a matter  of  illu- 
sion, if  one  may  judge  by  the  stories  told  of  his  work. 


28 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


The  tale  of  his  painting  a bunch  of  grapes  so  like  reality 
that  the  birds  came  to  peck  at  them  proves  either  that  the 
painter’s  motive  was  deception,  or  that  the  narrator  of  the 
tale  picked  out  the  deceptive  part  of  his  picture  for  admi- 
ration. He  painted  many  subjects,  like  Helen,  Penelope, 
and  many  genre  pieces  on  panel.  Quintilian  says  he  orig- 
inated light-and-shade,  an  achievement  credited  by  Plu- 
tarch to  Apollodorus.  It  is  probable  that  he  advanced 
light-and-shade. 

In  illusion  he  seems  to  have  been  outdone  by  a rival, 
Parrhasios  of  Ephesus.  Zeuxis  deceived  the  birds  with 
painted  grapes,  but  Parrhasios  deceived  Zeuxis  with  a 
painted  curtain.  There  must  have  been  knowledge  of  color, 
modelling,  and  relief  to  have  produced  such  an  illusion,  but 
the  aim  was  petty  and  unworthy  of  the  skill.  There  was 
evidently  an  advance  technically,  but  some  decline  in  the 
true  spirit  of  art.  Parrhasios  finally  suffered  defeat  at  the 
hands  of  Timanthes  of  Kythnos,  by  a Contest  between  Ajax 
and  Ulysses  for  the  Arms  of  Achilles.  Timanthes’s  famous 
work  was  the  Sacrifice  of  Iphigenia,  of  which  there  is  a 
supposed  Pompeian  copy. 

SIKYONIAN  SCHOOL ; This  school  seems  to  have  sprung  up 
after  the  Peloponnesian  Wars,  and  was  perhaps  founded 
by  Eupompos,  a contemporary  of  Parrhasios.  His  pupil 
Pamphilos  brought  the  school  to  maturity.  He  apparently 
reacted  from  the  deception  motive  of  Zeuxis  and  Par- 
rhasios, and  taught  academic  methods  of  drawing,  com- 
posing, and  painting.  He  was  also  credited  with  bringing 
into  use  the  encaustic  method  of  painting,  though  it  was 
probably  known  before  his  time.  His  pupil,  Pausias,  pos- 
sessed some  freedom  of  creation  in  genre  and  still-life  sub- 
jects. Pliny  says  he  had  great  technical  skill,  as  shown  in 
the  foreshortening  of  a black  ox  by  variations  of  the  black 
tones,  and  he  obtained  some  fame  by  a figure  of  Methe 
(Intoxication)  drinking  from  a glass,  the  face  being  seen 


FIG.  13. — ODYSSEY  LANDSCAPE,  VATICAN.  (FROM  WOLTMANN  AND  WOERMANN.) 

productions.  Euphranor  had  great  versatility  in  the  arts, 
and  in  painting  was  renowned  for  his  pictures  of  the  Olym- 
pian gods  at  Athens.  His  successor,  Nikias  (fl.  340-300  b.c.), 
was  a contemporary  of  Praxiteles,  the  sculptor,  and  was 
possibly  influenced  by  him  in  the  painting  of  female  figures. 
He  was  a technician  of  ability  in  composition,  light-and- 
shade,  and  relief,  and  was  praised  for  the  roundness  of  his 
figures.  He  also  did  some  tinting  of  sculpture,  and  is  said 
to  have  tinted  some  of  the  works  of  Praxiteles. 


GREEK  PAINTING. 


through  the  glass.  Again  the  motives  seem  trifling,  but 
again  advancing  technical  power  is  shown. 

THEBAN-ATTIC  SCHOOL:  This  was  the  fourth  school  of 
Greek  painting.  Nikomachus  (fl.  about  360  b.c.),  a facile 
painter,  was  at  its  head.  His  pupil,  Aristides,  painted  pa- 
thetic scenes,  and  was  perhaps  as  remarkable  for  teaching 
art  to  the  celebrated  Euphranor  (fl.  360  b.c.)  as  for  his  own 


30 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


LATE  PAINTERS : Contemporary  with  and  following  these 
last-named  artists  were  some  celebrated  painters  who  really 
belong  to  the  beginning  of  the  Hellenistic  Period  (323  b.c.). 
At  their  head  was  Apelles,  the  painter  of  Philip  and  Alex- 
ander, and  the  climax  of  Greek  painting.  He  painted  many 
gods,  heroes,  and  allegories,  with  much  “gracefulness,”  as 
Pliny  puts  it.  The  Italian  Botticelli,  seventeen  hundred 
years  after  him,  tried  to  reproduce  his  celebrated  Calumny, 
from  Lucian’s  description  of  it.  His  chief  works  were  his 
Aphrodite  Anadyomene,  carried  to  Rome  by  Augustus,  and 
the  portrait  of  Alexander  with  the  Thunder-bolt.  He  was 
undoubtedly  a superior  man  technically.  Protogenes  rivalled 
him,  if  we  are  to  believe  Petronius,  by  the  foam  on  a dog’s 
mouth  and  the  wonder  in  the  eye  of  a startled  pheasant. 
Aetion,  the  painter  of  Alexander’s  Marriage  to  Roxana,  was 
not  able  to  turn  the  aim  of  painting  from  this  deceptive 
illusion.  After  Alexander,  painting  passed  still  further  into 
the  imitative  and  the  theatrical,  and  when  not  grandiloquent 
was  infinitely  little  over  cobbler-shops  and  huckster-stalls. 
Landscape  for  purposes  of  decorative  composition,  and 
floor  painting,  done  in  mosaic,  came  in  during  the  time 
of  the  Diadochi.  There  were  no  great  names  in  the  latter 
days,  and  such  painters  as  still  flourished  passed  on  to 
Rome,  there  to  produce  copies  of  the  works  of  their  pre- 
decessors. 

It  is  hard  to  reconcile  the  unworthy  motive  attributed 
to  Greek  painting  by  the  ancient  writers  with  the  high 
aim  of  Greek  sculpture.  It  is  easier  to  think  (and  it  is 
more  probable)  that  the  writers  knew  very  little  about 
art,  and  that  they  missed  the  spirit  of  Greek  painting 
in  admiring  its  insignificant  details.  That  painting  tech- 
nically was  at  a high  point  of  perfection  as  regards  the  fig- 
ure, even  the  imitative  Roman  works  indicate,  and  it  can 
hardly  be  doubted  that  in  spirit  it  was  at  one  time  equally 
strong. 


GREEK  PAINTING. 


31 


EXTANT  REMAINS:  There  are  few  wall  or  panel  pictures  of  Greek 
times  in  existence.  Four  slabs  of  stone  in  the  Naples  Museum,  with  red 
outline  drawings  of  Theseus,  Silenos,  and  some  figures  with  masks,  are 
probably  Greek  work  from  which  the  color  has  scaled.  A number  of 
Roman  copies  of  Greek  frescos  and  mosaics  are  in  the  Vatican,  Capito- 
line,  and  Naples  Museums.  All  these  pieces  show  an  imitation  of  late 
Hellenistic  art — not  the  best  period  of  Greek  development. 

THE  VASES  : The  history  of  Greek  painting  in  its  remains  is  traced 
with  some  accuracy  in  the  decorative  figures  upon  the  vases.  The  first 
ware — dating  before  the  seventh  century  B.c. — seems  free  from  oriental 
influences  in  its  designs.  The  vase  is  reddish,  the 
decoration  is  in  tiers,  bands,  or  zig-zags,  usually  in 
black  or  brown,  without  the  human  figure.  The 
second  kind  of  ware  dates  from  about  the  middle 
of  the  seventh  century.  It  shows  meander,  wave, 
and  other  designs,  and  is  called  the  “geometrical” 
style.  Later  on  animals,  rosettes,  and  vegetation 
appear  that  show  Assyrian  influence.  The  decora- 
tion is  profuse  and  the  rude  human  figure  subor- 
dinate to  it.  The  design  is  in  black  or  dark -brown, 
on  a ci*eam-colored  slip.  The  third  kind  of  ware 
is  the  archaic  or  “strong”  style.  It  dates  from 
500  B.C.  to  the  Peloponnesian  Wars,  and  is  marked  pIG>  I4  — AMPHore, 
by  black  figures  upon  a yell  iw  or  red  ground.  lower  italy. 

White  and  purple  are  also  used  to  define  flesh,  hair, 

and  white  objects.  The  figure  is  stiff,  the  action  awkward,  the  composi- 
tion is  freer  than  before,  but  still  conventional.  The  subjects  are  the 
gods,  demi-gods,  and  heroes  in  scenes  from  their  lives  and  adventures. 
The  fourth  kind  of  ware  dates  down  into  the  Hellenistic  age  and  shows 
red  figures  surrounded  by  a black  ground.  The  figure,  the  drawing,  the 
composition  are  better  than  at  any  other  period  and  suggest  a high  excel- 
lence in  other  forms  of  Greek  painting,  After  Alexander,  vase  painting 
seems  to  have  shared  the  fate  of  wall  and  panel  painting.  There  was  a 
striving  for  effect,  with  ornateness  and  extravagance,  and  finally  the  art 
passed  out  entirely. 

There  was  an  establishment  founded  in  Southern  Italy  which  imitated 
the  Greek  and  produced  the  Apulian  ware,  but  the  Romans  gave  little  en- 
couragement to  vase  painting,  and  about  65  B.c.  it  disappeared.  Almost 
all  the  museums  of  the  world  have  collections  of  Greek  vases.  The 
British,  Berlin,  and  Paris  collections  are  perhaps  as  complete  as  any. 


32 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


ETRUSCAN  AND  ROMAN  PAINTING. 

Books  Recommended  : See  Bibliography  of  Greek  Paint- 
ing and  also  Dennis,  Cities  and  Cemeteries  of  Etruria  j Graul, 
Die  Portratgemalde  aus  den  Grabstatten  des  Faiyum  ; Hel- 
big,  Die  Wandgemalde  Campaniens ; Helbig,  Untersuchungen 
iiber  die  Campanische  Wandmalerei ; Mau,  Geschichte  der  Dec- 
or ativen  Wandmalerei  in  Pompeii ; Martha,  L' Archeologie 
Etrnsque  et  Romaine. 

ETRUSCAN  PAINTING : Painting  in  Etruria  has  not  a great 
deal  of  interest  for  us  just  here.  It  was  largely  decorative 
and  sepulchral  in  motive,  and  was  employed  in  the  painting 
of  tombs', "and  upon  vases  and  other  objects  placed  in  the 
tombs.  It  had  a native  way  of  expressing  itself,  which  at 
first  was  neither  Greek  nor  Oriental,  and  yet  a reminder  of 
both.  Technically  it  was  not  well  done.  Before  500  b.c.  it 
was  almost  childish  in  the  drawing.  After  that  date  the 
figures  were  better,  though  short  and  squat.  Those  on 
the  vases  usually  show  outline  drawing  filled  in  with  dull 
browns  and  yellows.  Finally  there  was  a mingling  of 
Etruscan  with  Greek  elements,  and  an  imitation  of  Greek 
methods.  It  was  at  best  a hybrid  art,  but  of  some  impor- 
tance from  an  archaeological  point  of  view. 

ROMAN  PAINTING : Roman  art  is  an  appendix  to  the  art 
history  of  Greece.  It  originated  little  in  painting,  and  was 
content  to  perpetuate  the  traditions  of  Greece  in  an  imita- 
tive way.  What  was  worse,  it  copied  the  degeneracy  of 
Greece  by  following  the  degenerate  Hellenistic  paintings. 
In  motive  and  method  it  was  substantially  the  same  work  as 
that  of  the  Greeks  under  the  Diadochi.  The  subjects,  again, 
were  often  taken  from  Greek  story,  though  there  were 
Roman  historical  scenes,  genre  pieces,  and  many  portraits. 

In  the  beginning  of  the  Empire  tablet  or  panel  painting 
was  rather  abandoned  in  favor  of  mural  decoration.  That 


the  wall.  Thus  painting  assumed  a more  decorative  nature. 
Vitruvius  says  in  effect  that  in  the  early  days  nature  was 
followed  in  these  wall  paintings,  but  later  on  they  became 
ornate  and  overdone,  showing  many  unsupported  architect- 
ural fagades  and  impossible  decorative  framings.  This  can 
be  traced  in  the  Roman  and  Pompeian  frescos.  There 
were  four  kinds  of  these  wall  paintings,  (i.)  Those  that 
covered  all  the  walls  of  a room  and  did  away  with  dado, 
frieze,  and  the  like,  such  as  figures  with  large  landscape 
3 


ETRUSCAN  AND  ROMAN  PAINTING.  33 

is  to  say,  figures  or  groups  were  painted  in  fresco  on 
the  wall  and  then  surrounded  by  geometrical,  floral,  or 
architectural  designs  to  give  the  effect  of  a panel  let  into 


FIG.  15.— RITUAL  SCENE,  PALATINE  WALL  PAINTING. 
(from  woltmann  and  WOERMANN.) 


with  architectural  backgrounds.  The  single  figures  were 
usually  the  best.  They  had  grace  of  line  and  motion  and 
all  the  truth  to  nature  that  decoration  required.  Some  of 
the  backgrounds  were  flat  tints  of  red  or  black  against 
which  the  figure  was  placed.  In  the  larger  pieces  the  com- 


FIG.  l6. — PORTRAIT-HEAD.  (FROM  FAYOUM,  GRAF  COL.) 


34  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


backgrounds  showing  villas  and  trees.  (2.)  Small  paintings 
separated  or  framed  by  pilasters.  (3.)  Panel  pictures  let 
into  the  wall  or  painted  with  that  effect.  (4.)  Single  figures 


ETRUSCAN  AND  ROMAN  PAINTING. 


35 


position  was  rather  rambling  and  disjointed,  and  the  color 
harsh.  In  light-and-shade  and  relief  they  probably  followed 
the  Greek  example. 

ROMAN  PAINTERS:  During  the  first  five  centuries  Rome 
was  between  the  influences  of  ETruria  and  Greece.  The 
first  paintings  in  Rome  of  which  there  is  record  were  done 
in  the  Temple  of  Ceres  by  the  Greek  artists  of  Lower  Italy, 
Gorgasos  and  Damophilos  (fl.  493  b.c.).  They  were  doubtless 
somewhat  like  the  vase  paintings — profile  work,  without 
light,  shade,  or  perspective.  At  the  time  and  after  Alex- 
ander Greek  influence  held  sway.  Fabius  Pictor  (fl.  about 
300  b.c.)  is  one  of  the  celebrated  names  in  historical  paint- 
ing, and  later  on  Pacuvius,  Metrodorus,  and  Serapion  are 
mentioned.  In  the  last  century  of  the  Republic,  Sopolis, 
Dionysius,  and  Antiochus  Gabinius  excelled  in  portraiture. 
Ancient  painting  really  ends  for  us  with  the  destruction  of 
Pompeii  (79  a.d.),  though  after  that  there  were  interesting 
portraits  produced,  especially  those  found  in  the  Fayoum 
(Egypt).* 

EXTANT  REMAINS  : The  frescos  that  are  left  to  us  to-day  are  largely 
the  work  of  mechanical  decorators  rather  than  creative  artists.  They  are 
to  be  seen  in  Rome,  in  the  Baths  of  Titus,  the  Vatican,  Livia’s  Villa, 
Farnesina,  Rospigliosi,  and  Barberini  Palaces,  Baths  of  Caracalla,  Capito- 
line  and  Lateran  Museums,  in  the  houses  of  excavated  Pompeii,  and  the 
Naples  Museum.  Besides  these  there  are  examples  of  Roman  fresco  and 
distemper  in  the  Louvre  and  other  European  Museums.  Examples  of 
Etruscan  painting  are  to  be  seen  in  the  Vatican,  Cortona,  the  Louvre,  the 
British  Museum  and  elsewhere. 


See  Scribner’s  Magazine,  vol.  v. , p.  219,  New  Series. 


CHAPTER  IV. 


ITALIAN  PAINTING. 

EARLY  CHRISTIAN  AND  MEDIAEVAL  PERIOD.  200-1250. 

Books  Recommended  : Bayet,  L'  Art  Byzantin ; Bennett, 
Christian  Archaeology  ; Bosio,  La  Roma  Sotterranea;  Burck- 
hardt,  The  Cicerone , an  Art  Guide  to  Painting  in  Italy , ed.  by 
Crowe ; Crowe  and  Cavalcaselle,  New  History  of  Painting  in 
Italy;  De  Rossi,  La  Roma  Sotterranea  Cristiana ; De  Rossi, 
Bullettino  di  Archeologia  Cristiana  ; Didron,  Christian  Icono- 
graphy ; Eastlake  (Kiigler’s),  Handbook  of  Painting — The 
Italian  Schools ; Garrucci,  Storia  delV  Arte  Cristiana; 
Gerspach,  La  Mosaique  ; Lafenestre,  La  Peinture  Italienne  ; 
Lanzi,  History  of  Painting  in  Italy ; Lecoy  de  la  Marche, 
Les  Manuscrits  et  la  Miniature ; Lindsay,  Sketches  of  the 
History  of  Christian  Art ; Martigny,  Didionnaire  des  An- 
tiques Chretiennes  ; Perate,  H Archeologie  Chrdienne  ; Reber, 
History  of  Mediceval  Art ; Rio,  Poetry  of  Christian  Art ; 
Smith  and  Cheetham,  Dictionary  of  Christian  Antiquities. 

RISE  OF  CHRISTIANITY:  Out  of  the  decaying  civilization 
of  Rome  sprang  into  life  that  remarkable  growth  known  as 
Christianity.  It  was  not  welcomed  by  the  Romans.  It  was 
scoffed  at,  scourged,  persecuted,  and,  at  one  time,  nearly 
exterminated.  But  its  vitality  was  stronger  than  that  of  its 
persecutor,  and  when  Rome  declined,  Christianity  utilized 
the  things  that  were  Roman,  while  striving  to  live  for  ideas 
that  were  Christian. 

There  was  no  revolt,  no  sudden  change.  The  Christian 
idea  made  haste  slowly,  and  at  the  start  it  was  weighed 
down  with  many  paganisms.  The  Christians  themselves,  in 


ITALIAN  PAINTING. 


37 


all  save  religious  faith,  were  Romans,  and  inherited  Roman 
tastes,  manners,  and  methods.  But  the  Roman  world,  with 
all  its  classicism  and  learning,  was  dying.  The  decline 
socially  and  intellectually  was  with  the  Christians  as  well 
as  the  Romans.  There  was  good  reason  for  it.  The  times 


FIG.  17. — CHAMBER  IN  CATACOMBS,  SHOWING  WALL  DECORATION. 


were  out  of  joint,  and  almost  everything  was  disorganized, 
worn  out,  decadent.  The  military  life  of  the  Empire  had 
begun  to  give  way  to  the  monastic  and  feudal  life  of  the 
Church.  Quarrels  and  wars  between  the  powers  kept  life 
at  fever  heat.  In  the  fifth  century  came  the  inpouring  of 
the  Goths  and  Huns,  and  with  them  the  sacking  and  plunder 


38 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


of  the  land.  Misery  and  squalor,  with  intellectual  black- 
ness, succeeded.  Art,  science,  literature,  and  learning 
degenerated  to  mere  shadows  of  their  former  selves,  and 
a semi-barbarism  reigned  for  five  centuries.  During  all 
this  dark  period  Christian  painting  struggled  on  in  a feeble 
way,  seeking  to  express  itself.  It  started  Roman  in  form, 
method,  and  even,  at  times,  in  subject ; it  ended  Christian, 
but  not  without  a long  period  of  gradual  transition,  during 
which  it  was  influenced  from  many  sources  and  underwent 
many  changes. 

ART  MOTIVES:  As  in  the  ancient  world,  there  were  two 
principal  motives  for  painting  in  early  Christian  times — 
religion  and  decoration.  Religion  was  the  chief  motive, 
but  Christianity  was  a very  different  religion  from  that  of 
the  Greeks  and  Romans.  The  Hellenistic  faith  was  a wor- 
ship of  nature,  a glorification  of  humanity,  an  exaltation  of 
physical  and  moral  perfections.  It  dealt  with  the  material 
and  the  tangible,  and  Greek  art  appealed  directly  to  the 
sensuous  and  earthly  nature  of  mankind.  The  Hebraic 
faith  or  Christianity  was  just  the  opposite  of  this.  It  decried 
the  human,  the  flesh,  and  the  worldly.  It  would  have  noth- 
ing to  do  with  the  beauty  of  this  earth.  Its  hopes  were 
centred  upon  the  life  hereafter.  The  teaching  of  Christ 
was  the  humility  ancTthe  abasement  of  the  human  in  favor 
of  the  spiritual  and  the  divine.  Where  Hellenism  appealed 
to  the  senses,  Hebraism  appealed  to  the  spirit.  In  art  the 
fine  athletic  figure,  or,  for  that  matter,  any  figure,  was  an 
abomination.  The  early  Church  fathers  opposed  it.  It 
was  forbidden  by  the  Mosaic  decalogue  and  savored  of 
idolatry. 

But  what  should  take  its  place  in  art  ? How  could  the 
new  Christian  ideas  be  expressed  without  form  ? Symbol- 
ism came  in,  but  it  was  insufficient.  A party  in  the  Church 
rose  up  in  favor  of  more  direct  representation.  Art  should 
be  used  as  an  engine  of  the  Church  to  teach  the  Bible  to 


ITALIAN  PAINTING. 


39 


those  who  could  not  read.  This  argument  held  good,  and 
notwithstanding  the  opposition  of  the  Iconoclastic  party 
painting  grew  in  favor.  It  lent  itself  to  teaching  and  came 
under  ecclesiastical  domination.  As  it  left  the  nature  of 
the  classic  world  and  loosened  its  grasp  on  things  tangible 
it  became  feeble  and  decrepit  in  its  form.  While  it  grew  in 
sentiment  and  religious  fervor  it  lost  in  bodily  vigor  and 
technical  ability. 

For  many  centuries  the  religious  motive  held  strong,  and 
art  was  the  servant  of  the  Church.  It  taught  the  Bible 
truths,  but  it  also  embellished  and  adorned  the  interiors  of 


the  churches.  All  the  frescos,  mosaics,  and  altar-pieces 
had  a decorative  motive  in  their  coloring  and  setting.  The 
church  building  was  a house  of  refuge  for  the  oppressed,  and 
it  was  made  attractive  not  only  in  its  lines  and  proportions 
but  in  its  ornamentation.  Hence  the  two  motives  of  the 
early  work — religious  teaching  and  decoration. 

SUBJECTS  AND  TECHNICAL  METHODS : There  was  no  distinct 
Judaic  or  Christian  type  used  in  the  very  early  art.  The 
painters  took  their  models  directly  from  the  Roman  frescos 
and  marbles.  It  was  the  classic  figure  and  the  classic  cos- 


40 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


tume,  and  those  who  produced  the  painting  of  the  early 
period  were  the  degenerate  painters  of  the  classic  world. 
The  figure  was  rather  short  and  squat,  coarse  in  the  joints, 
hands,  and  feet,  and  almost  expressionless  in  the  face. 
Christian  life  at  that  time  was  passion-strung,  but  the  faces 
in  art  do  not  show  it,  for  the  reason  that  the  Roman  frescos 
were  the  painter’s  model,  not  the  people  of  the  Christian 
community  about  him.  There  was  nothing  like  a realistic 
presentation  at  this  time.  The  type  alone  was  given. 

In  the  drawing  it  was  not  so  good  as  that  shown  in  the 
Roman  and  Pompeian  frescos.  There  was  a mechanism 
about  its  production,  a copying  by  unskilled  hands,  a negli- 
gence or  an  ignorance  of  form  that  showed  everywhere. 
The  coloring,  again,  was  a conventional  scheme  of  flat  tints 
in  reddish-browns  and  bluish-greens,  with  heavy  outline 
bands  of  brown.  There  was  little  perspective  or  back- 
ground, and  the  figures  in  panels  were  separated  by  vines, 
leaves,  or  other  ornamental  division  lines.  Some  relief  was 
given  to  the  figure  by  the  brown  outlines.  Light-and-shade 
was  not  well  rendered,  and  composition  was  formal.  The 
great  part  of  this  early  work  was  done  in  fresco  after  the 
Roman  formula,  and  was  executed  on  the  walls  of  the 
Catacombs.  Other  forms  of  art  showed  in  the  gilded 
glasses,  in  manuscript  illumination,  and,  later,  in  the  mosaics. 

Technically  the  work  begins  to  decline  from  the  begin- 
ning in  proportion  as  painting  was  removed  from  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  ancient  world.  About  the  fifth  century  the 
figure  grew  heavy  and  stiff.  A new  type  began  to  show 
itself.  The  Roman  toga  was  exchanged  for  the  long  litur- 
gical garment  which  hid  the  proportions  of  the  body,  the 
lines  grew  hard  and  dark,  a golden  nimbus  appeared  about 
the  head,  an'd  the  patriarchal  in  appearance  came  into  art. 
The  youthful  Orphic  face  of  Christ  changed  to  a solemn 
visage,  with  large,  round  eyes,  saint-like  beard,  and  melan- 
choly air.  The  classic  qualities  were  fast  disappearing. 


ITALIAN  PAINTING. 


41 


Eastern  types  and  elements  were  being  introduced  through 
Byzantium.  Oriental  ornamentation,  gold  embossing,  rich 
color  were  doing  away  with  form,  perspective,  light-and- 
shade,  and  background. 

The  color  was  rich  and  the  mechanical  workmanship  fair 
for  the  time,  but  the  figure  had  become  paralytic.  It 
shrouded  itself  in  a sack-like  brocaded  gown,  had  no  feet 
at  times,  and  instead  of  standing  on  the  ground  hung  in  the 
air.  Facial  expression  ran  to  contorted  features,  holiness 
became  moroseness,  and  sadness  sulkiness.  The  flesh  was 
brown,  the  shadows  green-tinted,  giving  an  unhealthy  look 


FIG.  19. — CHRIST  AS  GOOD  SHEPHERD.  MOSAIC,  RAVENNA,  FIFTH  CENTURY. 


to  the  faces.  Add  to  this  the  gold  ground  (a  Persian  in- 
heritance), the  gilded  high  lights,  the  absence  of  perspec- 
tive, and  the  composing  of  groups  so  that  the  figures 
looked  piled  one  upon  another  instead  of  receding,  and  we 
have  the  style  of  painting  that  prevailed  in  Byzantium  and 
Italy  from  about  the  ninth  to  the  thirteenth  century.  Noth- 
ing of  a technical  nature  was  in  its  favor  except  the  rich 
coloring  and  the  mechanical  adroitness  of  the  fitting. 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


EARLY  CHRISTIAN  PAINTING:  The  earliest  Christian  paint- 
ing appeared  on  the  walls  of  the  Catacombs  in  Rome. 
These  were  decorated  with  panels  and  within  the  panels 
were  representations  of  trailing  vines,  leaves,  fruits,  flowers, 
with  birds  and  little  genii  or  cupids.  It  was  painting  simi- 
lar to  the  Roman  work,  and  had  no  Christian  significance 
though  in  a Christian  place.  Not  long  after,  however,  the 
desire  to  express  something  of  the  faith  began  to  show  it- 
self in  a symbolic  way.  The  cups  and  the  vases  became 
marked  with  the  fish,  because  the  Greek  spelling  of  the  word 
“ icthus  ’’gave  the  initials  of  the  Christian  confession  of  faith. 
The  paintings  of  the  shepherd  bearing  a sheep  symbolized 
Christ  and  his  flock  ; the  anchor  meant  the  Christian  hope  ; 
the  phoenix  immortality  ; the  ship  the  Church  ; the  cock 
watchfulness,  and  so  on.  And  at  this  time  the  decorations 
began  to  have  a double  meaning.  The  vine  came  to 
represent  the  “ I am  the  vine  ” and  the  birds  grew  longer 
wings  and  became  doves,  symbolizing  pure  Christian  souls. 

It  has  been  said  this  form  of  art  came  about  through 
fear  of  persecution,  that  the  Christians  hid  their  ideas  in 
symbols  because  open  representation  would  be  followed  by 
violence  and  desecration.  Such  was  hardly  the  case.  The 
emperors  persecuted  the  living,  but  the  dead  and  their 
sepulchres  were  exempt  from  sacrilege  by  Roman  law. 
They  probably  used  the  symbol  because  they  feared  the 
Roman  figure  and  knew  no  other  form  to  take  its  place. 
But  symbolism  did  not  supply  the  popular  need ; it  was  im- 
possible to  originate  an  entirely  new  figure  ; so  the  painters 
went  back  and  borrowed  the  old  Roman  form.  Christ  ap- 
peared as  a beardless  youth  in  Phrygian  costume,  the  Virgin 
Mary  was  a Roman  matron,  and  the  Apostles  looked  like 
Roman  senators  wearing  the  toga. 

Classic  story  was  also  borrowed  to  illustrate  Bible  truth. 
Hermes  carrying  the  sheep  was  the  Good  Shepherd,  Psyche 
discovering  Cupid  was  the  curiosity  of  Eve,  Ulysses  clos- 


ITALIAN  PAINTING. 


43 


in g his  ears  to  the  Sirens  was  the  Christian  resisting  the 
tempter.  The  pagan  Orpheus  charming  the  animals  of  the 
wood  was  finally  adopted  as  a symbol,  or  perhaps  an  ideal 


FIG.  20.— CHRIST  AND  SAINTS,  FRESCO.  S.  GENEROSA,  SEVENTH  CENTURY  (?). 


likeness  of  Christ.  Then  followed  more  direct  representa- 
tion in  classic  form  and  manner,  the  Old  Testament  pre- 
figuring and  emphasizing  the  New.  Jonah  appeared  cast 
into  the  sea  and  cast  by  the  whale  on  dry  land  again  as  a 
symbol  of  the  New  Testament  resurrection,  and  also  as  a 
representation  of  the  actual  occurrence.  Moses  striking 
the  rock  symbolized  life  eternal,  and  David  slaying  Goliath 
was  Christ  victorious. 

The  chronology  of  the  Catacombs  painting  is  very  much 
mixed,  but  it  is  quite  certain  there  was  degeneracy  from  the 
start.  The  cause  was  neglect  of  form,  neglect  of  art  as  art, 
mechanical  copying  instead  of  nature  study,  and  finally,  the 
predominance  of  the  religious  idea  over  the  forms  of  nature. 
With  Constantine  Christianity  was  recognized  as  the  na- 
tional religion.  Christian  art  came  out  of  the  Catacombs 
and  began  to  show  itself  in  illuminations,  mosaics,  and 
church  decorations.  Notwithstanding  it  was  now  free  from 
restraint  it  did  not  improve.  Church  traditions  prevailed, 


c 


44  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 

sentiment  bordered  upon  sentimentality,  and  the  technic  of 
painting  passed  from  bad  to  worse. 

The  decline  continued  during  the  sixth  and  seventh  cen- 
turies, owing  somewhat  perhaps  to  the  influence  of  Byzan- 
tium and  the  introduction  into  Italy  of  Eastern  types  and 
elements.  In  the  eighth  century  the  Iconoclastic  contro- 
versy broke  out  again  in  fury  with  the  edict  of  Leo  the 
Isaurian.  This  controversy  was  a renewal  of  the  old  quarrel 
in  the  Church  about  the  use  of  pictures  and  images.  Some 
wished  them  for  instruction  in  the  Word  ; others  decried 
them  as  leading  to  idolatry.  It  was  a long  quarrel  of  over 
a hundred  years’  duration,  and  a deadly  one  for  art.  When 
it  ended,  the  artists  were  ordered  to  follow  the  traditions, 
not  to  make  any  new  creations,  and  not  to  model  any  figure 
in  the  round.  The  nature  element  in  art  was  quite  dead  at 
that  time,  and  the  order  resulted  only  in  diverting  the  course 
of  painting  toward  the  unrestricted  miniatures  and  manu- 
scripts. The  native  Italian  art  was  crushed  for  a time  by 
this  new  ecclesiastical  burden.  It  did  not  entirely  disap- 
pear, but  it  gave  way  to  the  stronger,  though  equally  re- 
stricted art  that  had  been  encroaching  upon  it  for  a long 
time — the  art  of  Byzantium. 

BYZANTINE  PAINTING:  Constantinople  was  rebuilt  and 

rechristened  by  Constantine,  a Christian  emperor,  in  the 
year  328  a.d.  It  became  a stronghold  of  Christian  tradi- 
tions, manners,  customs,  art.  But  it  was  not  quite  the  same 
civilization  as  that  of  Rome  and  the  West.  It  was  bordered 
on  the  south  and  east  by  oriental  influences,  and  much  of 
Eastern  thought,  method,  and  glamour  found  its  way  into 
the  Christian  community.  The  artists  fought  this  influence, 
stickling  a long  time  for  the  severer  classicism  of  ancient 
Greece.  For  when  Rome  fell  the  traditions  of  the  Old  World 
centred  around  Constantinople.  But  classic  form  was  ever 
being  encroached  upon  by  oriental  richness  of  material  and 
color.  The  struggle  was  a long  but  hopeless  one.  As  in 


ITALIAN  PAINTING.  45 


Italy,  form  failed  century  by  century.  When,  in  the  eighth 
century,  the  Iconoclastic  controversy  cut  away  the  little 
Greek  existing  in  it,  the  oriental  ornament  was  about  all 
that  remained. 

There  was  no  chance  for  painting  to  rise  under  the  pre- 
vailing conditions.  Free  artistic  creation  was  denied  the 
artist.  An  advocate  of  painting  at  the  Second  Nicene  Coun- 
cil declared  that : “ It  is  not  the  invention  of  the  painter 
that  creates  the  picture,  but  an  inviolable  law  of  the  Cath- 
olic Church.  It  is  not 
the  painter  but  the  holy 
fathers  who  have  to  invent 
and  dictate.  To  them 
manifestly  belongs  the 
composition,  to  the  paint- 
er only  the  execution.’* 

Painting  was  in  a strait- 
jacket.  It  had  to  follow 
precedent  and  copy  what 
had  gone  before  in  old 
Byzantine  patterns.  Both 
in  Italy  and  in  Byzantium 
the  creative  artist  had 
passed  away  in  favor  of 
the  skilled  artisan  — the 
repeater  of  time-honored 
forms  or  colors.  The 
workmanship  was  good  for 
the  time,  and  the  coloring 
and  ornamental  borders 

FIG.  21. — EZEKIEL  BEFORE  THE  LORD.  MS.  IL' 

made  a rich  setting,  but  lumination.  paris,  ninth  century. 

the  real  life  of  art  had 

gone.  A long  period  of  heavy,  morose,  almost  formless 
art,  eloquent  of  mediaeval  darkness  and  ignorance,  followed. 

It  is  strange  that  such  an  art  should  be  adopted  by 


4 6 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


foreign  nations,  and  yet  it  was.  Its  bloody  crucifixions  and 
morbid  madonnas  were  well  fitted  to  the  dark  view  of  life  held 
during  the  Middle  Ages,  and  its  influence  was  wide-spread 
and  of  long  duration.  It  affected  French  and  German  art, 
it  ruled  at  the  North,  and  in  the  East  it  lives  even  to  this 
day.  That  it  strongly  affected  Italy  is  a very  apparent  fact. 
Just  when  it  first  began  to  show  its  influence  there  is  mat- 
ter of  dispute.  It  probably  gained  a foothold  at  Ravenna 
in  the  sixth  century,  when  that  province  became  a part 
of  the  empire  of  Justinian.  Later  it  permeated  Rome, 
Sicily,  and  Naples  at  the  south,  and  Venice  at  the  north. 
With  the  decline  of  the  early  Christian  art  of  Italy  this 
richer,  and  in  many  ways  more  acceptable,  Byzantine  art 
came  in,  and,  with  Italian  modifications,  usurped  the  field. 
It  did  not  literally  crush  out  the  native  Italian  art,  but 
practically  it  superseded  it,  or  held  it  in  check,  from  the 
ninth  to  the  twelfth  century.  After  that  the  corrupted 
Italian  art  once  more  came  to  the  front. 

EARLY  CHRISTIAN  AND  BYZANTINE  REMAINS : The  best  examples 
of  Early  Christian  painting  are  still  to  be  seen  in  the  Catacombs  at  Rome. 
Mosaics  in  the  early  churches  of  Rome,  Ravenna,  Naples,  Venice,  Con- 
stantinople. Sculptures,  ivories,  and  glasses  in  the  Lateran,  Ravenna, 
and  Vatican  museums.  Illuminations  in  Vatican  and  Paris  libraries.  Al- 
most all  the  museums  of  Europe,  those  of  the  Vatican  and  Naples  particu- 
larly, have  some  examples  of  Byzantine  work.  The  older  altar-pieces  of 
the  early  Italian  churches  date  back  to  the  mediaeval  period  and  show 
Byzantine  influence.  The  altar-pieces  of  the  Greek  and  Russian  churches 
show  the  same  influence  even  in  modern  work. 


CHAPTER  V. 


ITALIAN  PAINTING. 

GOTHIC  PERIOD.  I250-I400. 

Books  Recommended  : As  before,  Burckhardt,  Crowe 

and  Cavalcaselle,  Eastlake,  Lafenestre,  Lanzi,  Lindsay, 
Reber  ; also  Burton,  Catalogue  of  Pictures  in  the  National 
Gallery , London  ( unabridged  edition);  Cartier,  Vie  de  Fra 
Angelico ; Forster,  Leben  und  Werke  des  Fra  Angelico ; 
Habich,  Vade  Mecum  pour  la  Peinture  Italienne  des  Anciens 
Maitres;  Lacroix,  Les  Arts  au  Moyen-Age  et  a V Epoque  de  la 
Renaissance ; Mantz,  Les  Chef s-d'  oeuvre  de  la  Peinture  Ltal- 
ienne ; Morelli,  Ltalian  Masters  in  German  Galleries;  Morelli, 
Ltalian  Masters , Critical  Studies  in  their  Works;  Rumohr, 
Ltalienische  Forschungen ; Stillman,  Old  Ltalian  Masters; 
Vasari,  Lives  of  the  Most  Eminent  Painters ; consult  also 
General  Bibliography  (p.  xv). 

SIGNS  OF  THE  AWAKENING:  It  would  seem  at  first  as  though 
nothing  but  self-destruction  could  come  to  that  struggling, 
praying,  throat-cutting  population  that  terrorized  Italy  dur- 
ing the  Mediaeval  Period.  The  people  were  ignorant,  the 
rulers  treacherous,  the  passions  strong,  and  yet  out  of  the 
Dark  Ages  came  light.  In  the  thirteenth  century  the  light 
grew  brighter,  but  the  internal  dissensions  did  not  cease. 
The  Hohenstaufen  power  was  broken,  the  imperial  rule  in 
Italy  was  crushed.  Pope  and  emperor  no  longer  warred 
each  other,  but  the  cries  of  “ Guelf  ” and  “ Ghibelline  ” had 
not  died  out. 

Throughout  the  entire  Romanesque  and  Gothic  periods 
(1000-1400)  Italy  was  torn  by  political  wars,  though  the 


4&  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 

free  cities,  through  their  leagues  of  protection  and  their 
commerce,  were  prosperous.  A commercial  rivalry  sprang 
up  among  the  cities.  Trade  with  the  East,  manufactures, 
banking,  all  flourished  ; and  even  the  philosophies,  with  law, 
science,  and  literature,  began  to  be  studied.  The  spirit  of 
learning  showed  itself  in  the  founding  of  schools  and  uni- 
versities. Dante,  Petrarch,  and  Boccaccio,  reflecting  respec- 
tively religion,  classic  learning,  and  the  inclination  toward 
nature,  lived  and  gave  indication  of  the  trend  of  thought. 
Finally  the  arts,  architecture,  sculpture,  painting,  began  to 
stir  and  take  upon  themselves  new  appearances. 

SUB JECTS  AND  METHODS : In  painting,  though  there  were 
some  portraits  and  allegorical  scenes  produced  during  the 
Gothic  period,  the  chief  theme  was  Bible  story.  The 
Church  was  the  patron,  and  art  was  only  the  servant,  as  it 
had  been  from  the  beginning.  It  was  the  instructor  and 
consoler  of  the  faithful,  a means  whereby  the  Church  made 
converts,  and  an  adornment  of  wall  and  altar.  It  had  not 
entirely  escaped  from  symbolism.  It  was  still  the  portrayal 
of  things  for  what  they  meant,  rather  than  for  what  they 
looked.  There  was  no  such  thing  then  as  art  for  art’s  sake. 
It  was  art  for  religion’s  sake. 

The  demand  for  painting  increased,  and  its  subjects  mul- 
tiplied with  the  establishment  at  this  time  of  the  two  power- 
ful orders  of  Dominican  and  Franq^pan  monks.  The  first 
exacted  from  the  painters  more  learned  and  instructive 
work  ; the  second  wished  for  the  crucifixions,  the  martyr- 
doms, the  dramatic  deaths,  wherewith  to  move  people  by 
emotional  appeal.  To  offset  this  the  ultra-religious  char- 
acter of  painting  was  encroached  upon  somewhat  by  the 
growth  of  the  painters’  guilds,  and  art  production  largely 
passing  into  the  hands  of  laymen.  In  consequence  paint- 
ing produced  many  themes,  but,  as  yet,  only  after  the 
Byzantine  style.  The  painter  was  more  of  a workman  than 
an  artist.  The  Church  had  more  use  for  his  fingers  than  for 


ITALIAN  PAINTING. 


49 


There  was  an  inclination  toward  something  truer  to  nature, 
but,  as  yet,  no  great  realization  of  it.  The  study  of  nature 
came  in  very  slowly,  and  painting  was  not  positive  in  state- 
ment until  the  time  of  Giotto  and  Lorenzetti. 

The  best  paintings  during  the  Gothic  period  were  exe- 
cuted upon  the  walls  of  the  churches  in  fresco.  The  pre- 
pared color  was  laid  on  wet  plaster,  and  allowed  to  soak  in. 
The  small  altar  and  panel  pictures  were  painted  in  dis- 
temper, the  gold  ground  and  many  Byzantine  features  being 
retained  by  most  of  the  painters,  though  discarded  by  some 
few. 


his  creative  ability.  It  was  his  business  to  transcribe  what 
had  gone  before.  This  he  did,  but  not  without  signs  here 
and  there  of  uneasiness  and  discontent  with  the  pattern. 


FIG.  22.— GIOTTO,  FLIGHT  INTO  EGYPT.  ARENA  CHAP.  PADUA. 


50 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


CHANGES  IN  THE  TYPE,  ETC.:  The  advance  of  Italian  art 
in  the  Gothic  age  was  an  advance  through  the  development 
of  the  imposed  Byzantine  pattern.  It  was  not  a revolt  or  a 
starting  out  anew  on  a wholly  original  path.  When  people 
began  to  stir  intellectually  the  artists  found  that  the  old 
Byzantine  model  did  not  look  like  nature.  They  began, 
not  by  rejecting  it,  but  by  improving  it,  giving  it  slight 
movements  here  and  there,  turning  the  head,  throwing  out 
a hand,  or  shifting  the  folds  of  drapery.  The  Eastern  type 
was  still  seen  in  the  long  pathetic  face,  oblique  eyes,  green 
flesh  tints,  stiff  robes,  thin  fingers,  and  absence  of  feet ; 
but  the  painters  now  began  to  modify  and  enliven  it.  More 
realistic  Italian  faces  were  introduced,  architectural  and 
landscape  backgrounds  encroached  upon  the  Byzantine 
gold  grounds,  even  portraiture  was  taken  up. 

This  looks  very  much  like  realism,  but  we  must  not  lay 
too  much  stress  upon  it.  The  painters  were  taking  notes 
of  natural  appearances.  It  showed  in  features  like  the 
hands,  feet,  and  drapery  ; but  the  anatomy  of  the  body  had 
not  yet  been  studied,  and  there  is  no  reason  to  believe 
their  study  of  the  face  was  more  than  casual,  nor  their 
portraits  more  than  records  from  memory. 

No  one  painter  began  this  movement.  The  whole  artis- 
tic region  of  Italy  was  at  that  time  ready  for  the  advance. 
That  all  the  painters  moved  at  about  the  same  pace,  and 
continued  to  move  at  that  pace  down  to  the  fifteenth 
century,  that  they  all  based  themselves  upon  Byzantine 
teaching,  and  that  they  all  had  a similar  style  of  working  is 
proved  by  the  great  difficulty  in  attributing  their  existing 
pictures  to  certain  masters,  or  even  certain  schools.  There 
are  plenty  of  pictures  in  Italy  to-day  that  might  be  at- 
tributed to  either  Florence  or  Sienna,  Giotto  or  Lorenzetti, 
or  some  other  master  ; because  though  each  master  and  each 
school  had  slight  peculiarities,  yet  they  all  had  a common 
origin  in  the  art  traditions  of  the  time. 


ITALIAN  PAINTING. 


Si 


further  from  the  art  teachings  of  the  time  without  decidedly 
opposing  them.  He  retained  the  Byzantine  pattern,  but 
loosened  the  lines  of  drapery  somewhat,  turned  the  head  to 
one  side,  infused  the  figure  with  a little  appearance  of  life. 
His  contemporaries  elsewhere  in  Italy  were  doing  the  same 
thing,  and  none  of  them  was  any  more  than  a link  in  the 
progressive  chain. 


FLORENTINE  SCHOOL:  Cimabue  (1240  ?-i302  ?)  seems  the 
most  notable  instance  in  early  times  of  a Byzantine-educated 
painter  who  improved  upon  the  traditions.  He  has  been 
called  the  father  of  Italian  painting,  but  Italian  painting 
had  no  father.  Cimabue  was  simply  a man  of  more  origi- 
nality and  ability  than  his  contemporaries,  and  departed 


FIG.  23. — ORCAGNA,  PARADISE  (DETAIL).  S.  M.  NOVELLA,  FLORENCE. 


52 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


Cimabue’s  pupil,  Giotto  (i266?-i337),  was  a great  im- 
prover on  all  his  predecessors  because  he  was  a man  of  ex- 
traordinary genius.  He  would  have  been  great  in  any 
time,  and  yet  he  was  not  great  enough  to  throw  off  wholly  the 
Byzantine  traditions.  He  tried  to  do  it.  He  studied  nat- 
ure in  a general  way,  changed  the  type  of  face  somewhat 
by  making  the  jaw  squarer,  and  gave  it  expression  and  no- 
bility. To  the  figure  he  gave  more  motion,  dramatic  gest- 
ure, life.  The  drapery  was  cast  in  broader,  simpler  masses, 
with  some  regard  for  line,  and  the  form  and  movement  of 
the  body  were  somewhat  emphasized  through  it.  In  meth- 
ods Giotto  was  more  knowing,  but  not  essentially  different 
from  his  contemporaries  ; his  subjects  were  from  the  com- 
mon stock  of  religious  story ; but  his  imaginative  force  and 
invention  were  his  own.  Bound  by  the  conventionalities  of 
his  time  he  could  still  create  a work  of  nobility  and  power. 
He  came  too  early  for  the  highest  achievement.  He  had 
genius,  feeling,  fancy,  almost  everything  except  accurate 
knowledge  of  the  laws  of  nature  and  art.  His  art  was  the 
best  of  its  time,  but  it  still  lacked,  nor  did  that  of  his  im- 
mediate followers  go  much  beyond  it  technically. 

Taddeo  Gaddi  (1300  ?-i366  ?)  was  Giotto’s  chief  pupil,  a 
painter  of  much  feeling,  but  lacking  in  the  large  elements 
of  construction  and  in  the  dramatic  force  of  his  master. 
Agnolo  Gaddi  (1333  ?— 1396  ?),  Antonio  Veneziano  (1312?- 
1388?),  Giovanni  da  Milano  (fl.  1366),  Andrea  da  Firenze 
(fl.  1377),  were  all  followers  of  the  Giotto  methods,  and 
were  so  similar  in  their  styles  that  their  works  are  often 
confused  and  erroneously  attributed.  Giottino  (1324?- 
1 35 7 ?)  was  a supposed  imitator  of  Giotto,  of  whom  little 
is  known.  Orcagna  (1329  ?—  1 3 7 6 ?)  still  further  advanced 
the  Giottesque  type  and  method.  He  gathered  up  and 
united  in  himself  all  the  art  teachings  of  his  time.  In 
working  out  problems  of  form  and  in  delicacy  and  charm 
of  expression  he  went  beyond  his  predecessors.  He  was 


ITALIAN  PAINTING. 


53 


a many-sided  genius,  knowing  not  only  in  a matter  of 
natural  appearance,  but  in  color  problems,  in  perspective, 
shadows,  and  light.  His  art  was  further  along  toward  the 
Renaissance  than  that  of  any  other  Giottesque.  He  almost 
changed  the  character  of  painting,  and  yet  did  not  live  near 
enough  to  the  fifteenth  century  to  accomplish  it  completely. 
Spinello  Aretino  (1332  ?-i4io  ?)  was  the  last  of  the  great 
Giotto  followers.  He  carried  out  the  teachings  of  the 
school  in  technical  features,  such  as  composition,  drawing, 
and  relief  by  color  rather  than  by  light,  but  he  lacked  the 
creative  power  of  Giotto.  In  fact,  none  of  the  Giottesque 
can  be  said  to  have  improved  upon  the  master,  taking  him 
as  a whole.  Toward  the  beginning  of  the  fifteenth  century 
the  school  rather  declined. 

SIENNESE  SCHOOL : The  art  teachings  and  traditions  of  the 
past  seemed  deeper  rooted  at  Sienna  than  at  Florence. 
Nor  was  there  so  much  attempt  to 
Florence.  Giotto  broke  the  immo- 
bility of  the  Byzantine  model  by 
showing  the  draped  figure  in  action. 

So  also  did  the  Siennese  to  some 
extent,  but  they  cared  more  for  the 
expression  of  the  spiritual  than  the 
beauty  of  the  natural.  The  Floren- 
tines were  robust,  resolute,  even  a 
little  coarse  at  times  ; the  Siennese 
were  more  refined  and  sentimental. 

Their  fancy  ran  to  sweetness  of  face 
rather  than  to  bodily  vigor.  Again, 
their  art  was  more  ornate,  richer  in  costume,  color,  and  de- 
tail than  Florentine  art  ; but  it  was  also  more  finical  and 
narrow  in  scope. 

There  was  little  advance  upon  Byzantinism  in  the  work 
of  Guido  da  Sienna  (fl.  1275).  Even  Duccio  (1260? — ?),  the 
real  founder  of  the  Siennese  school,  retained  Byzantine 


shake  them  off  as  at 


FIG.  24. — A.  LORENZETTI.  PEACE 
(DETAIL).  TOWN-HALL,  SIENNA. 


54 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


methods  and  adopted  the  school  subjects,  but  he  perfected 
details  of  form,  such  as  the  hands  and  feet,  and  while  re- 
taining the  long  Byzantine  face,  gave  it  a melancholy  ten- 
derness of  expression.  He  possessed  no  dramatic  force, 
but  had  a refined  workmanship  for  his  time — a workmanship 
perhaps  better,  all  told,  than  that  of  his  Florentine  contem- 
porary, Cimabue.  Simone  di  Martino  (1283  ?-i344  ?)  changed 
the  type  somewhat  by  rounding  the  form.  His  drawing  was 
not  always  correct,  but  in  color  he  was  good  and  in  detail 
exact  and  minute.  He  probably  profited  somewhat  by  the 
example  of  Giotto. 

The  Siennese  who  came  the  nearest  to  Giotto’s  excellence 
were  the  brothers  Ambrogio  (fl.  1342)  and  Pietro  (fl.  1350) 
Lorenzetti.  There  is  little  known  about  them  except  that 
they  worked  together  in  a similar  manner.  The  most  of 
their  work  has  perished,  but  what  remains  shows  an 
intellectual  grasp  equal  to  any  of  the  age.  The  Sienna 
frescos  by  Ambrogio  Lorenzetti  are  strong  in  facial  charac- 
ter, and  some  of  the  figures,  like  that  of  the  white-robed 
Peace,  are  beautiful  in  their  flow  of  line.  Lippo  Memmi 
(?— 1356),  Bartolo  di  Eredi  (1330-1410),  and  Taddeo  di  Bartolo 
(1362-1422),  were  other  painters  of  the  school.  The  late 
men  rather  carried  detail  to  excess,  and  the  school  grew 
conventional  instead  of  advancing. 

TRANSITION  PAINTERS:  Several  painters,  Stamina  (1354- 
1413),  Gentile  da  Fabriano  (1360  ?-i 440  ?),  Era  Angelico 
(1387-1455),  have  been  put  down  in  art  history  as  the 
makers  of  the  transition  from  Gothic  to  Renaissance  paint- 
ing. They  hardly  deserve  the  title.  There  was  no  transi- 
tion. The  development  went  on,  and  these  painters,  coming 
late  in  the  fourteenth  century  and  living  into  the  fifteenth, 
simply  showed  the  changing  style,  the  advance  in  the  study 
of  nature  and  the  technic  of  art.  Stamina’s  work  gave 
strong  evidence  of  the  study  of  form,  but  it  was  no  such 
work  as  Masaccio’s.  There  is  always  a little  of  the  past  in 


ITALIAN  PAINTING. 


55 


the  present,  and  these  painters  showed  traces  of  Byzantin- 
ism in  details  of  the  face  and  figure,  in  coloring,  and  in  gold 
embossing. 

Gentile  had  all  that  nicety  of  finish  and  richness  of  detail 
and  color  characteristic  of  the  Sien- 
nese. Being  closer  to  the  Renaissance 
than  his  predecessors  he  was  more  of  a 
nature  student.  He  was  the  first  man 
to  show  the  effect  of  sunlight  in  land- 
scape, the  first  one  to  put  a gold  sun 
injtbe-sky.  He  never,  however,  out- 
grew Gothic  methods  and  really  be- 
longs in  the  fourteenth  century.  This 
is  true  of  Fra  Angelico.  Though  he 
lived  far  into  the  Early  Renaissance 
he  did  not  change  his  style  and  man- 
ner of  work  in  conformity  with  the 
work  of  others  about  him.  He  was  the 
last  inheritor  of  the  Giottesque  tradi- 
tions. Religious  sentiment  was  the 
strong  feature  of  his  art.  He  was  be- 
hind Giotto  and  Lorenzetti  in  power 
and  in  imagination,  and  behind  Or- 
cagna as  a painter.  He  knew  little  of 
light,  shade,  perspective,  and  color, 
and  in  characterization  was  feeble,  ex- 
cept in  some  late  work.  One  face  or  type  answered  him  for 
all  classes  of  people — a sweet,  fair  face,  full  of  divine  tender- 
ness. His  art  had  enough  nature  in  it  to  express  his  mean- 
ings, but  little  more.  He  was  pre-eminently  a devout 
painter,  and  really  the  last  of  the  great  religionists  in 
painting. 

The  other  regions  of  Italy  had  not  at  this  time  devel- 
oped schools  of  painting  of  sufficient  consequence  to  men- 
tion. 


FIG.  25. — FRA  ANGELICO.  AN- 
GEL (detail).  UFFIZI. 


56 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


PRINCIPAL  WORKS:  Florentines— Cimabue,  Madonnas  S.  M. 
Novella  and  Acad.  Florence,  frescos  Upper  Church  of  Assisi  (?)  ; Gi- 
otto, frescos  Upper  and  Lower  churches  Assisi,  best  work  Arena  chapel 
Padua,  Bardi  and  Peruzzi  chapels  S.  Croce,  injured  frescos  Bargello  Flor- 
ence ; Taddeo  Gaddi,  frescos  entrance  wall  Baroncelli  chapel  S.  Croce, 
Spanish  chapel  S.  M.  Novella  (designed  by  Gaddi  (?));  Agnolo  Gaddi 
frescos  in  choir  S.  Croce,  S.  Jacopo  tra  Fossi  Florence,  panel  pictures 
Florence  Acad.;  Giovanni  da  Milano,  Bewailing  of  Christ  Florence 
Acad.,  Virgin  enthroned  Prato  Gab,  altar-piece  Uffizi  Gab,  frescos  S’. 
Croce  Florence  ; Antonio  Veneziano,  frescos  in  ceiling  of  Spanish 
chapel,  S.  M.  Novella,  Campo  Santo  Pisa  ; Orcagna,  altar-piece  Last 
Judgment  and  Paradise  Strozzi  chapel  S.  M.  Novella,  S.  Zenobio  Duomo, 
Saints  Medici  chapel  S.  Croce,  Descent  of  Holy  Spirit  Badia  Florence, 
altar-piece  Nat.  Gal.  Lon.;  Spinello  Aretino,  Life  of  St.  Benedict  S. 
Miniato  al  Monte  near  Florence,  Annunciation  Convent  deg?  Innocenti 
Arezzo,  frescos  Campo  Santo  Pisa,  Coronation  Florence  Acad.,  Barbarossa 
frescos  Palazzo  Publico  Sienna  ; Andrea  da  Firenze,  Church  Militant, 
Calvary,  Crucifixion  Spanish  chapel,  Upper  series  of  Life  of  S.  Raniera 
Campo  Santo  Pisa. 

Siennese — Guido  da  Sienna,  Madonna  S.  Domenico  Sienna  ; Duc- 
cio, panels  Duomo  and  Acad.  Sienna,  Madonna  Nat.  Gal.  Lon.;  Simone 
di  Martino,  frescos  Palazzo  Pubblico,  Sienna,  altar-piece  and  panels  Semi- 
nario  Vescovile,  Pisa  Gal.,  altar-piece  and  Madonna  Opera  del  Duomo 
Orvieto  ; Lippo  Memmi,  frescos  Palazzo  del  Podesta  S.  Gemignano, 
Annunciation  Uffizi  Florence  ; Bartolo  di  Fredi,  altar-pieces  Acad. 
Sienna,  S.  Francesco  Montalcino  ; Taddeo  di  Bartolo,  Palazzo  Pubblico 
Sienna,  Duomo,  S.  Gemignano,  S.  Francesco  Pisa ; Ambrogio  Loren- 
zetti,  frescos  Palazzo  Pubblico  Sienna,  Triumph  of  Death  (with  Pietro 
Lorenzetti)  Campo  Santo  Pisa,  St.  Francis  frescos  Lower  Church  Assisi, 
S.  Francesco  and  S.  Agostino  Sienna,  Annunciation  Sienna  Acad.,  Pres- 
entation Florence  Acad.;  Pietro  Lorenzetti,  Virgin  S.  Ansano,  altar- 
pieces  Duomo  Sienna,  Parish  Church  of  Arezzo  (worked  with  his  brother 
Ambrogio). 

TRANSITION  PAINTERS:  Stamina,  frescos  Duomo  Prato  (com- 
pleted by  pupil) ; Gentile  da  Fabriano,  Adoration  Florence  Acad., 
Coronation  Brera  Milan,  Madonna  Duomo  Orvieto  ; Fra  Angelico,  Cor- 
onation and  many  small  panels  Uffizi,  many  pieces  Life  of  Christ  Florence 
Acad.,  other  pieces  S.  Marco  Florence,  Last  Judgment  Duomo,  Orvieto. 


CHAPTER  VI. 


ITALIAN  PAINTING. 

EARLY  RENAISSANCE.  1400-1500. 

Books  Recommended  : As  before,  Burckhardt,  Crowe  and 
Cavalcaselle,  Eastlake,  Lafenestre,  Lanzi,  Habich,  Lacroix, 
Mantz,  Morelli,  Burton,  Rumohr,  Stillman,  Vasari  ; also 
Crowe  and  Cavalcaselle,  History  of  Painting  in  North  Italy ; 
Berenson,  Florentine  Painters  of  Renaissance  ; Berenson,  Vene- 
tian Painters  of  Renaissance  ; Berenson,  Central  Italian  Painters 
of  Renaissance  ; Bosch  ini,  La  Carta  del  Navegar ; Calvi,  Me- 
mo rie  della  Vita  ed  opere  di  Francesco  Raibolini ; Cibo,  Niccolo 
Alunno  e la  scuola  Umbra  ; Citadella,  Notizie  relative  a Ferrara  ; 
Morelli,  Anonimo,  Notizie;  Mezzanotte,  Commentario della  Vita 
di  Pietro  Vanucci;  Mundler,  Essai  d'une  Analyse  critique  de  la 
Notice  des  tableaux  Italiens  au  Louvre;  Muntz,  Les  P recur seurs 
de  la  Renaissance ; Muntz,  La  Renaissance en  Italie  eten  France; 
Patch,  Life  of  Masaccio;  Publications  of  the  Arundel  Society; 
Richter,  Ltalian  Art  in  National  Gallery,  London;  Ridolfi,  Le 
Meraviglie  dell ’ Arte;  Rosini,  Storia  della  Pittura  Italiana; 
Schnaase,  Geschichte  der  bildenden  Kiinste;  Symonds,  Renais- 
sance in  Italy — the  Fine  Arts;  Vischer,  Lucas  Signorelli  und 
die  Italienische  Renaissance;  Waagen,  Art  Treasures;  Waagen, 
Andrea  Mantegna  und  Luca  Signorelli  (in  Raumers  Taschen- 
buch,(  1850);  Zanetti,  Della  Pittura  Veneziana . 

THE  ITALIAN  MIND:  There  is  no  way  of  explaining  the 
Italian  fondness  for  form  and  color  other  than  by  consider- 
ing the  necessities  of  the  people  and  the  artistic  character 
of  the  Italian  mind.  Art  in  all  its  phases  was  not  only  an 
adornment  but  a necessity  of  Christian  civilization.  The 
Church  taught  people  by  sculpture,  mosaic,  miniature,  and 
fresco.  It  was  an  object-teaching,  a grasping  of  ideas  by 


5 8 HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


forms  seen  in  the  mind,  not  a presenting  of  abstract  ideas 
as  in  literature.  Printing  was  not  known.  There  were  few 
manuscripts,  and  the  majority  of  people  could  not  read. 

Ideas  came  to  them 
for  centuries  through 
form  and  color,  until 
at  last  the  Italian 
mind  took  on  a plastic 
and  pictorial  charac- 
ter. It  saw  things  in 
symbolic  figures,  and 
when  the  Renaissance 
came  and  art  took  the 
lead  as  one  of  its 
strongest  expressions, 
painting  was  but  the 
color  - thought  and 
form  - language  of  the 
people. 

And  these  people, 
by  reason  of  their  pe- 
culiar education,  were 
an  exacting  people, 
fig.  26. — fra  filippo.  madonna.  uFFizi.  knowing  what  was 

good  and  demanding 
it  from  the  artists.  Every  Italian  was,  in  a way,  an  art 
critic,  because  every  church  in  Italy  was  an  art  school. 
The  artists  may  have  led  the  people,  but  the  people  spurred 
on  the  artists,  and  so  the  Italian  mind  went  on  developing 
and  unfolding  until  at  last  it  produced  the  great  art  of  the 
Renaissance. 

THE  AWAKENING:  The  Italian  civilization  of  the  fourteenth 
century  was  made  up  of  many  impulses  and  inclinations, 
none  of  them  very  strongly  defined.  There  was  a feeling 
about  in  the  dark,  a groping  toward  the  light,  but  the  lead- 


ITALIAN  PAINTING. 


59 


ers  stumbled  often  on  the  road.  There  was  good  reason  for 
it.  The  knowledge  of  the  ancient  world  lay  buried  under 
the  ruins  of  Rome.  The  Italians  had  to  learn  it  all  over 
again,  almost  without  a precedent,  almost  without  a pre- 
ceptor. With  the  fifteenth  century  the  horizon  began  to 
brighten.  The  Early  Renaissance  was  begun.  It  was  not 
a revolt,  a reaction,  or  a starting  out  on  a new  path.  It  was 
a development  of  the  Gothic  period  ; and  the  three  inclina- 
tions of  the  Gothic  period — religion,  the  desire  for  classic 
knowledge,  and  the  study  of  nature — were  carried  into  the 
art  of  the  time  with  greater  realization. 

The  inference  must  not  be  made  that  because  nature  and 
the  antique  came  to  be  studied  in  Early  Renaissance  times 
that  therefore  religion  was  neglected.  It  was  not.  It  still 
held  strong,  and  though  with  the  Renaissance  there  came 
about  a strange  mingling  of  crime  and  corruption,  aestheti- 
cism and  immorality,  yet  the  Church  was  never  abandoned 
for  an  hour.  When  enlightenment  came,  people  began  to 
doubt  the  spiritual  power  of  the  Papacy.  They  did  not 
cringe  to  it  so  servilely  as  before.  Religion  was  not  violently 
embraced  as  in  the  Middle  Ages,  but  there  was  no  revolt. 
The  Church  held  the  power  and  was  still  the  patron  of  art. 
The  painter’s  subjects  extended  over  nature,  the  antique,  the 
fable,  allegory,  history,  portraiture  ; but  the  religious  sub- 
ject was  not  neglected.  Fully  three-quarters  of  all  the  fif- 
teenth-century painting  was  done  for  the  Church,  at  her 
command,  and  for  her  purposes. 

But  art  was  not  so  wholly  pietistic  as  in  the  Gothic  age. 
The  study  of  nature  and  the  antique  materialized  painting 
somewhat.  The  outside  world  drew  the  painter’s  eyes,  and 
thF"t5eauty  of  the  religious  subject  and  its  sentiment  were 
somewhat  slurred  for  the  beauty  of  natural  appearances. 
There  was  some  loss  of  religious  power,  but  religion  had 
much  to  lose.  In  the  fifteenth  century  it  was  still  domi- 
nant. 


6o 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


the  Albizzi,  the  Medici,  and  the  Dukes  of  Urbino,  encouraged 
it.  In  1440  the  Greek  was  taught  in  five  cities.  Immedi- 
ately afterward,  with  Constantinople  falling  into  the  hands 
of  the  Turks,  came  an  influx  of  Greek  scholars  into  Italy. 
Then  followed  the  invention  of  printing  and  the  age  of  dis- 
covery on  land  and  sea.  Not  the  antique  alone  but  the  nat- 
ural were  being  pried  into  by  the  spirit  of  inquiry.  Botany, 
geology,  astronomy,  chemistry,  medicine,  anatomy,  law,  lit- 


KNOWLEDGE  OF  THE  ANTIQUE  AND  NATURE : The  revival 
of  antique  learning  came  about  in  real  earnest  during  this 
period.  The  scholars  set  themselves  the  task  of  restoring 
the  polite  learning  of  ancient  Greece,  studying  coins  and 
marbles,  collecting  manuscripts,  founding  libraries  and 
schools  of  philosophy.  The  wealthy  nobles,  Palla  Strozzi, 


FIG.  27. — BOTTICELLI.  CORONATION  OF  MADONNA.  UFFIZI. 


ITALIAN  PAINTING. 


6 1 


erature — nothing  seemed  to  escape  the  keen  eye  of  the  time. 
Knowledge  was  being  accumulated  from  every  source,  and 
the  arts  were  all  reflecting  it. 

The  influence  of  the  newly  discovered  classic  marbles 
upon  painting  was  not  so  great  as  is  usually  supposed.  The 
painters  studied  them,  but  did  not  imitate  them.  Occasion- 
ally in  such  men  as  Botticelli  and  Mantegna  we  see  a follow- 
ing of  sculpturesque  example — a taking  of  details  and  even 
of  whole  figures — but  the  general  effect  of  the  antique  mar- 
bles was  to  impress  the  painters  with  the  idea  that  nature 
was  at  the  bottom  of  it  all  They  turned  to  the  earth  not 
only  to  study  form  and  feature,  but  to  learn  perspective, 
light,  shadow,  color — in  short,  the  technical  features  of  art. 
True,  religion  was  the  chief  subject,  but  nature  and  the  an- 
tique were  used  to  give  it  setting.  All  the  fifteenth-century 
painting  shows  nature  study,  force,  character,  sincerity  ; but 
it  does  not  show  elegance,  grace,  or  the  full  complement  of 
color.  The  Early  Renaissance  was  the  promise  of  great 
things  ; the  High  Renaissance  was  the  fulfilment. 

FLORENTINE  SCHOOL:  The  Florentines  were  draughtsmen 
more  than  colorists.  The  chief  medium  was  fresco  on  the 
walls  of  buildings,  and  architectural  necessities  often  dic- 
tated the  form  of  compositions.  Distemper  in  easel  pict- 
ures was  likewise  used,  and  oil-painting,  though  known, 
was  not  extensively  employed  until  the  last  quarter  of  the 
century.  In  technical  knowledge  and  intellectual  grasp 
Florence  was  at  this  time  the  leader  and  drew  to  her  many 
artists  from  neighboring  schools.  Masaccio  (1401  ?-i428  ?) 
was  the  first  great  nature  student  of  the  Early  Renaissance, 
though  his  master,  Masolino  (1383-1447),  had  given  proof 
positive  of  severe  nature  study  in  bits  of  modelling,  in 
drapery,  and  in  portrait  heads.  Masaccio,  however,  seems 
the  first  to  have  gone  into  it  thoroughly  and  to  have 
grasped  nature  as  a whole.  His  mastery  of  form,  his 
plastic  composition,  his  free,  broad  folds  of  drapery,  and  his 


62 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


knowledge  of  light  and  perspective,  all  placed  him  in  the 
front  rank  of  fifteenth-century  painters.  Though  an  exact 
student  he  was  not  a literalist.  He  had  a large  artistic 


FIG.  28.  — GHIRLANDAJO.  THE  VISITATION.  LOUVRE. 

sense,  a breadth  of  view,  and  a comprehension  of  nature  as 
a mass  that  Michael  Angelo  and  Raphael  did  not  disdain 
to  follow.  He  was  not  a pietist,  and  there  was  no  great 
religious  feeling  in  his  work.  Dignified  truthful  appear- 
ance was  his  creed,  and  in  this  he  was  possibly  influenced 
by  Donatello  the  sculptor. 

He  came  early  in  the  century  and  died  early,  but  his  con- 
temporaries did  not  continue  the  advance  from  where 
he  carried  it.  There  was  wavering  all  along  the  line. 
Some  from  lack  of  genius  could  not  equal  him,  others  took 


ITALIAN  PAINTING. 


63 


up  nature  with  indecision,  and  others  clung  fondly  to  the 
gold-embossed  ornaments  and  gilded  halos  of  the  past. 
Paolo  Uccello  (1397  ?— 1475),  Andrea  Castagno  (1390-1457), 
Benozzo  Gozzoli  (1420  ?— 1 497  ?),  Baldovinetti  (1427-1499), 
Antonio  del  Pollajuolo  (1426-1498),  Cosimo  Rosselli  (1439- 
1507),  can  hardly  be  looked  upon  as  improvements  upon 
the  young  leader.  The  first  real  successor  of  Masaccio 
was  his  contemporary,  and  possibly  his  pupil,  the  monk  Fra 
Filippo  Lippi  (1406-1469).  He  was  a master  of  color  and 
light-and-shade  for  his  time,  though  in  composition  and 
command  of  line  he  did  not  reach  up  to  Masaccio.  He  was 
among  the  first  of  the  painters  to  take  the  individual  faces 
of  those  about  him  as  models  for  his  sacred  characters,  and 
clothe  them  in  contemporary  costume.  Piety  is  not  very 
pronounced  in  any  of  his  works,  though  he  is  not  without 
imagination  and  feeling,  and  there  is  in  his  women  a charm 
of  sweetness.  His  tendency  was  to  materialize  the  sacred 
characters. 

^ With  Filippino  (1457  ?-i504),  Botticelli  (1446-1510),  and 
Ghirlandajo  (1449-1494)  we  find  a degree  of  imagination, 
culture,  and  independence  not  surpassed  by  any  of  the 
Early  Florentines.  Filippino  modelled  his  art  upon  that  of 
his  father,  Fra  Filippo,  and  was  influenced  by  Botticelli. 
He  was  the  weakest  of  the  trio,  without  being  by  any 
means  a weak  man.  On  the  contrary,  he  was  an  artist  of 
fine  ability,  much  charm  and  tenderness,  and  considerable 
style,  but  not  a great  deal  of  original  force,  though  occasion- 
ally doing  forceful  things.  Purity  in  his  type  and  graceful 
sentiment  in  pose  and  feature  seem  more  characteristic  of 
his  work.  Botticelli,  even,  was  not  so  remarkable  for  his 
strength  as  for  his  culture,  and  an  individual  way  of  looking 
at  things.  He  was  a pupil  of  Fra  Filippo,  a man  imbued  with 
the  religious  feeling  of  Dante  and  Savonarola,  a learned 
student  of  the  antique  and  one  of  the  first  to  take  subjects 
from  it,  a severe  nature  student,  and  a painter  of  much 


64 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


technical  skill.  Religion,  classicism,  and  nature  all  met 
in  his  work,  but  the  mingling  was  not  perfect.  Religious 
feeling  and  melancholy  warped  it.  His  willowy  figures,  deli- 
cate and  refined  in  drawing,  are  more  passionate  than  pow- 
erful, more  individual  than  comprehensive,  but  they  are 
nevertheless  very  attractive  in  their  tenderness  and  grace. 

Without  being  so  original  or  so  attractive  an  artist  as 
Botticelli,  his  contemporary,  Ghirlandajo,  was  a stronger 
one.  His  strength  came  more  from  assimilation  than  from 
invention.  He  combined  in  his  work  all  the  art  learning 
of  his  time.  He  drew  well,  handled  drapery  simply  and 

beautifully,  was  a good 
composer,  and,  for 
Florence,  a good  col- 
orist. In  addition,  his 
temperament  was  ro- 
bust, his  style  digni- 
fied, even  grand,  and 
his  execution  wonder- 
fully free.  He  was  the 
most  important  of  the 
fifteenth-century  tech- 
nicians, without  hav- 
ing any  peculiar  dis- 
tinction or  originality, 
and  in  spite  of  being 
rather  prosaic  at  times. 

Verrocchio  (1435- 
1488)  was  more  of  a 
sculptor  than  a painter, 
but  in  his  studio  were 

F,G.  29*  FRANCESCA.  DUKE  OF  URBINO.  UFF1ZI.  pupils 

— Perugino,  Leonardo  da  Vinci,  and  Lorenzo  di  Credi — wha 
were  half-way  between  the  Early  and  the  High  Renaissance. 
Only  one  of  them,  Leonardo,  can  be  classed  among  the 


ITALIAN  PAINTING. 


65 


High  Renaissance  men.  Perugino  belongs  to  the  Um- 
brian school,  and  Lorenzo  di  Credi  (1450-1537),  though 
Florentine,  never  outgrew  the  fifteenth  century.  He  was 
a pure  painter,  with  much  feeling,  but  weak  at  times.  His 
drawing  was  good,  but  his  painting  lacked  force,  and  he  was 
too  pallid  in  flesh  color.  There  is  much  detail,  study,  and 
considerable  grace  about  his  work,  but  little  of  strength. 
Piero  di  Cosimo  (1462-1521)  was  fond  of  mythological  and 
classical  studies,  was  somewhat  fantastic  in  composition, 
pleasant  in  color,  and  rather  distinguished  in  landscape 
backgrounds.  His  work  strikes  one  as  eccentric,  and  eccen- 
tricity was  the  strong  characteristic  of  the  man. 

UMBRIAN  AND  PERUGIAN  SCHOOLS:  At  the  beginning  of  the 
fifteenth  century  the  old  Siennese  school  founded  by  Duccio 
and  the  Lorenzetti  was  in  a state  of  decline.  It  had  been 
remarkable  for  intense  sentiment,  and  just  what  effect  this 
sentiment  of  the  old  Siennese  school  had  upon  the  painters 
of  the  neighboring  Umbrian  school  of  the  early  fifteenth 
century  is  matter  of  speculation  with  historians.  It  must 
have  had  some,  though  the  early  painters,  like  Ottaviano 
Nelli,  do  not  show  it.  That  which  afterward  became  known 
as  the  Umbrian  sentiment  probably  first  appeared  in  the 
work  of  Niccold  da  Foligno  (1430  ?-i502),  who  was  probably 
a pupil  of  Benozzo  Gozzoli,  who  was,  in  turn,  a pupil  of  Fra 
Angelico.  That  would  indicate  Florentine  influence,  but 
there  w’ere  many  influences^  at  work  in  this  upper-valley 
country.  Sentiment  had  been  prevalent  enough  all  through 
Central  Italian  painting  during  the  Gothic  age — more  so  at 
Sienna  than  elsewhere.  With  the  Renaissance  Florence 
rather  forsook  sentiment  for  precision  of  forms  and  equi- 
librium of  groups  ; but  the  Umbrian  towns  being  more  pro- 
vincial, held  fast  to  their  sentiment,  their  detail,  and  their 
gold^  ornamentation.  Their  influence  upon  Florence  was 
slight, ~but  the  influence  of  Florence  upon  them  was  con- 
siderable. The  larger  city  drew  the  provincials  its  way  to 
5 


66 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


learn  the  new  methods.  The  result  was  a group  of  Umbro- 
Florentine  painters,  combining  some  up-country  sentiment 
with  Florentine  technic.  Gentile  da  Fabriano,  Niccolo  da 
Foligno,  Bonfiglio  (1425  ?-i496  ?),  and  Fiorenzo  di  Lorenzo 
(1444  ?-i52o)  were  of  this  mixed  character. 

The  most  positive  in  methods  among  the  early  men  was 


FIG.  30. — SIGNORELLI.  THE  CURSE  (DETAIL).  ORVIETO. 

Piero  della  Francesca  (1420  ?-i492).  Umbrian  born,  but 
Florentine  trained,  he  became  more  scientific  than  senti- 
mental, and  excelled  as  a craftsman.  He  knew  drawing, 
perspective,  atmosphere,  light-and-shade  in  a way  that 
rather  foreshadowed  Leonardo  da  Vinci.  From  working 
in  the  Umbrian  country  his  influence  upon  his  fellow- 
Umbrians  was  large.  It  showed  directly  in  Signorelli 
(1441  ?-i523),  whose  master  he  was,  and  whose  style  he 


ITALIAN  PAINTING. 


6? 


probably  formed.  Signorelli  was  Umbrian  born,  like  Piero, 
but  there  was  not  much  of  the  Umbrian  sentiment  about 
him.  He  was  a draughtsman  and  threw  his  strength  in 
line,  producing  athletic,  square-shouldered  figures  in  violent 
action,  with  complicated  foreshortenings  quite  astonishing. 
The  most  daring  man  of  his  time,  he  was  a master  in  anat- 
omy, composition,  motion.  There  was  nothing  select  about 
his  type,  and  nothing  charming  about  his  painting.  His 
color  was  hot  and  coarse,  his  lights  lurid,  his  shadows  brick 
red.  He  was,  however,  a master-draughtsman,  and  a man 
of  large  conceptions  and  great  strength.  Melozzo  da  Forli 
(1438-1494),  of  whom  little  is  known,  was  another  pupil  of 
Piero,  and  Giovanni  Santi  (1435  ?- 1494),  the  father  of 
Raphael,  was  probably  influenced  by  both  of  these  last 
named. 

The  true  descent  of  the  Umbrian  sentiment  was  through 
Foligno  and  Bonfiglio  to  Perugino  (1446-1524).  Signorelli 
and  Perugino  seem  opposed  to  each  other  in  their  art.  The 
first  was  the  forerunner  of  Michael  Angelo,  the  second  was 
the  master  of  Raphael ; and  the  difference  between  Michael 
Angelo  and  Raphael  was,  in  a less  varied  degree,  the  differ- 
ence between  Signorelli  and  Perugino.  The  one  showed 
Florentine  line,  the  other  Umbrian  sentiment  and  color.  It 
is  in  Perugino  that  we  find  the  old  religious  feeling.  Fer- 
vor, tenderness,  and  devotion,  with  soft  eyes,  delicate  feat- 
ures, and  pathetic  looks  characterized  his  art.  The  figure 
was  slight,  graceful,  and  in  pose  sentimentally  inclined  to 
one  side.  The  head  was  almost  affectedly  placed  on  the 
shoulders,  and  the  round  olive  face  was  full  of  wistful  ten- 
derness. This  Perugino  type,  used  in  all  his  paintings,  is 
well  described  by  Taine  as  a “body  belonging  to  the  Re- 
naissance containing  a soul  that  belonged  to  the  Middle 
Ages.”  The  sentiment  was  more  purely  human,  however, 
than  in  such  a painter,  for  instance,  as  Fra  Angelico.  Re- 
ligion still  held  with  Perugino  and  the  Umbrians,  but  even 


68 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


dramatic  fire  and  fury  about  him.  The  composition  was 
simple,  with  graceful  figures  in  repose.  The  coloring  was 
rich,  and  there  were  many  brilliant  effects  obtained  by  the 
use  of  oils.  He  was  among  the  first  of  his  school  to  use 
that  medium.  His  friend  and  fellow-worker,  Pinturricchio 
(1454-1513),  did  not  use  oils,  but  was  a superior  man  in 
fresco.  In  type  and  sentiment  he  was  rather  like  Perugino, 
in  composition  a little  extravagant  and  huddled,  in  land- 
scape backgrounds  quite  original  and  inventive.  He  never 
was  a serious  rival  of  Perugino,  though  a more  varied  and 
interesting  painter.  Perugino’s  best  pupil,  after  Raphael, 


FIG.  31. — PERUGINO.  MADONNA,  SAINTS,  AND  ANGELS.  LOUVRE. 


with  them  it  was  becoming  materialized  by  the  beauty  of 
the  world  about  them. 

As  a technician  Perugino  was  excellent.  There  was  no 


ITALIAN  PAINTING. 


69 


was  Lo  Spagna  (?-i53o  ?),  who  followed  his  master’s  style 
until  the  High  Renaissance,  when  he  became  a follower 
of  Raphael. 

SCHOOLS  OF  FERRARA  AND  BOLOGNA : The  painters  of  Fer- 
rara, in  the  fifteenth  century,  seemed  to  have  relied  upon 
Padua  for  their  teaching.  The  best  of  the  early  men  was 
Cosimo  Tura  (1425  ?-i498  ?),  who  showed  the  Paduan  influ- 
ence of  Squarcione  in  anatomical  insistences,  coarse  joints. 
infinite  detail,  and  fantastic  ornamentation.  He  was  prob- 
ably the  founder  of  the  school  in  which  Francesco  Cossa 
(fl.  1450-1470),  a naif  and  strong,  if  somewhat  morbid 
painter,  Ercole  di  Giulio  Grandi  (?— 1 531),  and  Lorenzo  Costa 
(1460  ?-i536)  were  the  principal  masters.  Cossa  and  Grandi, 
it  seems,  afterward  removed  to  Bologna,  and  it  was  prob- 
ably their  move  that  induced  Lorenzo  Costa  to  follow  them. 
In  that  way  the  Ferrarese  school  became  somewhat  compli- 
cated with  the  Bolognese  school,  and  is  confused  in  its  his- 
tory to  this  day.  Costa  was  not  unlikely  the  real  founder, 
or,  at  the  least,  the  strongest  infl'uencer  of  the  Bolognese 
school.  He  was  a painter  of  a rugged,  manly  type,  afterward 
tempered  by  Southern  influences  to  softness  and  sentiment. 
This  was  the  result  of  Paduan  methods  meeting  at  Bologna 
with  Umbrian  sentiment. 

The  Perugino  type  and  influence,  had  found  its  way  to 
Bologna,  and  showed  in  the  work  of  Francia  (1450-1518), 
a contemporary  and  fellow-worker  with  Costa.  Though 
trained  as  a goldsmith,  and  learning  painting  in  a different 
school,  Francia,  as  regards  his  sentiment,  belongs  in  the 
same  category  with  Perugino.  Even  his  subjects,  types, 
and  treatment  were,  at  times,  more  Umbrian  than  Bolog- 
nese. He  was  not  so  profound  in  feeling  as  Perugino,  but 
at  times  he  appeared  loftier  in  conception.  His  color  was 
usually  rich,  his  drawing  a little  sharp  at  first,  as  showing 
the  goldsmith’s  hand,  the  surfaces  smooth,  the  detail  elabo- 
rate. Later  on,  his  work  had  a Raphaelesque  tinge,  show- 


70  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 

ing  perhaps  the  influence  of  that  rising  master.  It  is  prob- 
able that  Francia  at  first  was  influenced  by  Costa’s  methods, 
and  it  is  quite  certain  that  he  in  turn  influenced  Costa  in 
the  matter  of  refined  drawing  and  sentiment,  though  Costa 
always  adhered  to  a certain  detail  and  ornament  coming 
from  the  north,  and  a landscape  background  that  is  peculiar 
to  himself,  and  yet  reminds  one  of  Pinturricchio’s  land- 
scapes. These  two  men,  Francia  and  Costa,  were  the  Peru- 
gino  and  Pinturricchio  of  the  Ferrara-Bolognese  school,  and 
the  most  important  painters  in  that  school. 


FIG.  32. — SCHOOL  OF  FRANCIA.  MADONNA  AND  CHILD.  LOUVRE. 


THE  LOMBARD  SCHOOL : The  designation  of  the  Lombard 
school  is  rather  a vague  one  in  the  history  of  painting,  and 
is  used  by  historians  to  cover  a number  of  isolated  schools 


ITALIAN  PAINTING. 


7 1 


or  men  in  the  Lombardy  region.  In  the  fifteenth  century 
these  schools  counted  for  little  either  in  men  or  in  works. 
The  principal  activity  was  about  Milan,  which  drew  painters 
from  Brescia,  Vincenza,  and  elsewhere  to  form  what  is  known 
as  the  Milanese  school.  Vincenzo  Foppa  (fl.  1455-1492),  of 
Brescia,  and  afterward  at  Milan,  was  probably  the  founder 
of  this  Milanese  school.  His  painting  is  of  rather  a harsh, 
exacting  nature,  and  points  to  the  influence  of  Padua,  at 
which  place  he  perhaps  got  his  early  art  training.  Borgo- 
gnone  (?-i523)  is  set  down  as  his  pupil,  a painter  of  much 
sentiment  and  spiritual  feeling.  The  school  was  afterward 
greatly  influenced  by  the  example  of  Leonardo  da  Vinci,  as 
will  be  shown  further  on. 

PRINCIPAL  WORKS:  Florentines  — Masaccio,  frescos  in  Bran- 
cacci  Chapel  Carmine  Florence  (the  series  completed  by  Filippino) ; 
Masolino,  frescos  Church  and  Baptistery  Castiglione  d’  Olona  ; Paolo 
Uccello,  frescos  S.  M.  Novella,  equestrian  portrait  Duomo  Florence, 
battle-pieces  in  Louvre  and  Nat.  Gal.  Lon.;  Andrea  Castagno,  heroes 
and  sibyls  Uffizi,  altar-piece  Acad.  Florence,  equestrian  portrait  Duomo 
Florence  ; Benozzo  Gozzoli,  Francesco  Montefalco,  Magi  Ricardi  palace 
Florence,  frescos  Campo  Santo  Pisa ; Baldovinetti,  Portico  of  the  An- 
nunziata  Florence,  altar-pieces  Uffizi;  Antonio  Pollajuolo,  Hercules 
Uffizi,  St.  Sebastian  Pitti  and  Nat.  Gal.  Lon. ; Cosimo  Rosselli,  frescos 
S.  Ambrogio  Florence,  Sistine  Chapel  Rome,  Madonna  Uffizi ; Fra 
Filippo,  frescos  Cathedral  Prato,  altar-pieces  Florence  Acad.,  Uffizi,  Pitti 
and  Berlin  Gals.,  Nat.  Gal.  Lon.;  Filippino,  frescos  Carmine  Florence, 
Caraffa  Chapel  Minerva  Rome,  STLST^Novella  and  Acad.  Florence,  S. 
Domenico  Bologna,  easel  pictures  in  Pitti,  Uffizi,  Nat.  Gal.  Lon.  Berlin 
Mus.,  Old  Pinacothek  Munich  ; Botticelli,  frescos  Sistine  Chapel  Rome, 
Spring  and  Coronation  Florence  Acad.,  Venus,  Calumny,  Madonnas 
Uffizi,  Pitti,  Nat.  Gal.  Lon.,  Louvre,  etc.;  Ghirlandajo,  frescos  Sistine 
Chapel  Rome,  S.  Trinita  Florence,  S.  M.  Novella,  Palazzo  Vecchio,  altar- 
pieces  Uffizi  and  Acad.  Florence,  Visitation  Louvre  ; Verrocchio,  Bap- 
tism of  Christ  Acad.  Florence  ; Lorenzo  di  Credi,  Nativity  Acad.  Flor- 
ence, Madonnas  Louvre  and  Nat.  Gal.  Lon.,  Holy  Family  Borghese  Gal. 
Rome  ; Piero  di  Cosimo,  Perseus  and  Andromeda  Uffizi,  Procris  Nat. 
Gal.  Lon.,  Venus  and  Mars  Berlin  Gal. 

Umbrians — Ottaviano  Nelli,  altar-piece  S.  M.  Nuovo  Gubbio,  St. 


72 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


Augustine  legends  S.  Agostino  Gubbio  ; Niccold  da  Foligno,  altar-piece 
S.  Niccold  Foligno  ; Bonfigli,  frescos  Palazzo  Communale,  altar-pieces 
Acad.  Perugia;  Fiorenzo  di  Lorenzo,  many  pictures  Acad.  Perugia,  Ma- 
donna Berlin  Gal.;  Piero  della  Francesca,  frescos  Communita  and  Hos- 
pital Borgo  San  Sepolcro,  San  Francesco  Arezzo,  Chapel  of  the  Relicts  Ri- 
mini, portraits  Uffizi,  pictures  Nat.  Gal.  Lon.;  Signorelli,  frescos  Cathedral 
Orvieto,  Sistine  Rome,  Palazzo  Petrucci  Sienna,  altar-pieces  Arezzo,  Cor- 
tona, Perugia,  pictures  Pitti,  Uffizi,  Berlin,  Louvre,  Nat.  Gal.  Lon.;  Me- 
lozzo  da  Forli,  angels  St.  Peter’s  Rome,  frescos  Vatican,  pictures  Berlin 
and  Nat.  Gal.  Lon.;  Giovanni  Santi,  Annunciation  Milan,  Pieta  Urbino, 
Madonnas  Berlin,  Nat.  Gal.  Lon.,  S.  Croce  Fano  ; Perugino,  frescos 
Sistine  Rome,  Crucifixion  S.  M.  Maddalena  Florence,  Sala  del  Cambio 
Perugia,  altar-pieces  Pitti,  Fano,  Cremona,  many  pictures  in  European 
galleries  ; Pinturricchio,  frescos  S.  M.  del  Popolo,  Appartamento  Borgo 
Vatican,  Bufolini  Chapel  Aracoeli  Rome,  Duomo  Library  Sienna,  altar- 
pieces  Perugia  and  Sienna  Acads.,  Pitti,  Louvre  ; Lo  Spagna,  Madonna 
Lower  Church  Assisi,  frescos  at  Spoleto,  Turin,  Perugia,  Assisi. 

Ferrarese  and  Bolognese — Cosimo  Tura,  altar-pieces  Berlin  Mus., 
Bergamo,  Museo  Correr  Venice,  Nat.  Gal.  Lon.;  Francesco  Cossa, 
altar-pieces  S.  Petronio  and  Acad.  Bologna,  Dresden  Gal. ; Grandi,  St. 
George  Corsini  Pal.  Rome,  several  canvases  Constabili  Collection  Ferrara; 
Lorenzo  Costa,  frescos  S.  Giacomo  Maggiore,  altar-pieces  S.  Petronio, 
S.  Giovanni  in  Monte  and  Acad.  Bologna,  also  Louvre,  Berlin,  and  Nat. 
Gal.  Lon.;  Francia,  altar-pieces  S.  Giacomo  Maggiore,  S.  Martino  Mag- 
giore, and  many  altar-pieces  in  Acad.  Bologna,  Annunciation  Brera  Milan, 
Rose  Garden  Munich,  Pieta  Nat.  Gal.  Lon.,  Scappi  Portrait  Uffizi,  Bap- 
tism Dresden. 

Lombards — Foppa,  altar-pieces  S.  Maria  di  Castello  Savona,  Bor- 
romeo  Col.  Milan,  Carmine  Brescia,  panels  Brera  Milan  ; Borgognone, 
altar-pieces  Certosa  of  Pavia,  Church  of  Melegnano,  S.  Ambrogio,  Am- 
brosian Lib.,  Brera  Milan,  Nat.  Gal.  Lon. 


CHAPTER  VII. 


ITALIAN  PAINTING. 

EARLY  RENAISSANCE — 1400-I  500  — CONTINUED. 

Books  Recommended  : Those  on  Italian  art  before  men- 
tioned ; also  consult  the  General  Bibliography  (page  xv.) 

PADUAN  SCHOOL : It  was  at  Padua  in  the  north  that  the  in- 
fluence of  the  classic  marbles  made  itself  strongly  apparent. 
Umbria  remained  true  to  the  religious  sentiment,  Florence 
engaged  itself  largely  with  nature  study  and  technical  prob- 
lems, introducing  here  and  there  draperies  and  poses  that 
showed  knowledge  of  ancient  sculpture,  but  at  Padua  much 
ofjthe  ^clas-s4e-in  drapery,  figures,  and  architecture  seems 
to  have  been  taken  directly  from  the  rediscovered  antique 
or  the  modern  bronze. 

The  early  men  of  the  school  were  hardly  great  enough  to 
call  for  mention.  During  the  fourteenth  century  there  was 
some  Giotto  influence  felt — that  painter  having  been  at 
Padua  working  in  the  Arena  Chapel.  Later  on  there  was 
a slight  influence  from  Gentile  da  Fabriano  and  his  fellow- 
worker  Vittore  Pisano,  of  Verona.  But  these  influences 
seem  to  have  died  out  and  the  real  direction  of  the  school 
in  the  early  fifteenth  century  was  given  by  Francesco 
Squarcione  (1394-1474).  He  was  an  enlightened  man,  a 
student,  a collector  and  an  admirer  of  ancient  sculpture, 
and  though  no  great  painter  himself  he  taught  an  anatomi- 
cal statuesque  art,  based  on  ancient  marbles  and  nature, 
to  many  pupils. 


plement  of  his  knowledge  from  Squarcione.  He  was  of  an 
observing  nature  and  probably  studied  Paolo  Uccello  and 
Fra  Filippo,  some  of  whose  works  were  then  in  Paduan 
edifices.  He  gained  color  knowledge  from  the  Venetian 
Bellinis,  who  lived  at  Padua  at  one  time  and  who  were 
connected  with  Mantegna  by  marriage.  But  the  sculpt' 
uresque  side  of  his  art  came  from  Squarcione,  from  a study 
of  the  antique,  and  from  a deeper  study  of  Donatello,  whose 
bronzes  to  this  day  are  to  be  seen  within  and  without  the 
Paduan  Duomo  of  S.  Antonio. 

The  sculpturesque  is  characteristic  of  Mantegna’s  work. 
His  people  are  hard,  rigid  at  times,  immovable  human 
beings,  not  so  much  turned  to  stone  as  turned  to  bronze — 
the  bronze  of  Donatello.  There  is  little  sense  of  motion 


74  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 

Squarcione’s  work  has  perished,  but  his  teaching  was  re- 
flected in  the  work  of  his  great  pupil  Andrea  Mantegna 
(1431-1506).  Yet  Mantegna  never  received  the  full  com- 


FIG.  33. — MANTEGNA.  GONZAGA  FAMILY  GROUP  (DETAIL).  MANTUA. 


ITALIAN  PAINTING. 


7 5 


about  them.  The  figure  is  sharp  and  harsh,  the  drapery, 
evidently  studied  from  sculpture,  is  “liney,”  and  the  ar- 
chaeology is  often  more  scientific  than  artistic.  Mantegna 
was  not,  however,  entirely  devoted  to  the  sculpturesque. 
He  was  one  of  the  severest  nature  students  of  the  Early 
Renaissance,  knew  about  nature,  and  carried  it  out  in 
more  exacting  detail  than  was  perhaps  well  for  his  art. 
In  addition  he  was  a master  of  light-and-shade,  understood 
composition,  space,  color,  atmosphere,  and  was  as  scientific 
in  perspective  as  Piero  della  Francesca.  There  is  stiffness 
in  his  figures  but  nevertheless  great  truth  and  character. 
The  forms  are  noble,  even  grand,  and  for  invention  and 
imagmalioji  they  were  never,  in  his  time,  carriedHurtheF 
or  higher.  He  was  little  of  a sentimentalist  or  an  emo- 
tionalist, not  much  of  a brush  man  or  a colorist,  but  as 
a draughtsman,  a creator  of  noble  forms,  a man  of  power, 
he  stood  second  to  none  in  the  century. 

Of  Squarcione’s  other  pupils  Pizzolo  (fl.  1470)  was  the 
most  promising,  but  died  early.  Marco  Zoppo  (1445-1498) 
seems  to  have  followed  the  Paduan  formula  of  hardness,  dry- 
ness, and  exacting  detail.  He  was  possibly  influenced  by 
Cosimo  Tura,  and  in  turn  influenced  somewhat  the  Ferrara- 
Bolognese  school.  Mantegna,  however,  was  the  greatest 
of  the  school,  and  his  influence  was  far-reaching.  It  af- 
fected the  school  of  Venice  in  matters  of  drawing,  beside 
influencing  the  Lombard  and  Veronese  schools  in  their 
beginnings. 

SCHOOLS  OF  VERONA  AND  VICENZA : Artistically  Verona  be- 
longed with  the  Venetian  provinces,  because  it  was  largely 
an  echo  of  Venice  except  at  the  very  start.  Vittore  Pisano 
(1380-1456),  called  Pisanello,  was  the  earliest  painter  of 
note,  but  he  was  not  distinctly  Veronese  in  his  art.  He 
was  medallist  and  painter  both,  worked  with  Gentile  da 
Fabriano  in  the  Ducal  Palace  at  Venice  and  elsewhere,  and 
his  art  seems  to  have  an  affinity  with  that  of  his  companion. 


76 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


Liberale  da  Verona  (1451-1536?)  was  at  first  a miniaturist, 
but  afterward  developed  a larger  style  based  on  a following 
of  Mantegna’s  work,  with  some  Venetian  influences  showing 
in  the  coloring  and  backgrounds.  Francesco  Bonsignori 
(1455-15 19)  was  of  the  Verona  school,  but  established 
himself  later  at  Mantua  and  was  under  the  Mantegna  in- 
fluence. His  style  at  first  was  rather  severe,  but  he  after- 
ward developed  much  ability  in  portraiture,  historical 
work,  animals,  and  architectural  features.  Francesco 
Caroto  (1470-1546),  a pupil  of  Liberale,  really  belongs  to  the 


FIG.  34. — B.  VIVARINI.  MADONNA  AND  CHILD.  TURIN. 

next  century — the  High  Renaissance — but  his  early  works 
show  his  education  in  Veronese  and  Paduan  methods. 

In  the  school  of  Vicenza  the  only  master  of  much  note 


ITALIAN  PAINTING. 


n 


in  this  Early  Renaissance  time  was  Bartolommeo  Montagna 
(1450  ?— 15 23),  a painter  in  both  oil  and  fresco  of  much 
severity  and  at  times  grandeur  of  style.  In  drawing  he 
was  influenced  by  Mantegna,  in  composition  and  coloring 
he  showed  a study  of  Giovanni  Bellini  and  Carpaccio. 

VENETIAN  LIFE  AND  ART : The  conditions  of  art  produc- 
tion in  Venice  during  the  Early  Renaissance  were  quite  dif- 
ferent from  those  in  Florence  or  Umbria.  By  the  disposi- 
tion of  her  people  Venice  was  not  a learned  or  devout  city. 
Religion,  though  the  chief  subject,  was  not  the  chief  spirit 
of  Venetian  art.  Christianity  was  accepted  by  the  Venetians, 
but  with  no  fevered  enthusiasm.  The  Church  was  strong 
enough  there  to  defy  the  Papacy  at  one  time,  and  yet  relig- 
ion with  the  people  was  perhaps  more  of  a civic  function 
or  a duty  than  a spiritual  worship.  It  was  sincere  in  its 
way,  and  the  early  painters  painted  its  subjects  with  honesty, 
but  the  Venetians  were  much  too  proud  and  worldly  mind- 
ed to  take  anything  very  seriously  except  their  own  splen- 
dor and  their  own  power. 

Again,  the  Venetians  were  not  humanists  or  students  of 
the  revived  classic.  They  housed  manuscripts,  harbored 
exiled  humanists,  received  the  influx  of  Greek  scholars  after 
the  fall  of  Constantinople,  and  later  the  celebrated  Aldine 
press  was  established  in  Venice  ; but,  for  all  that,  classic 
learning  was  not  the  fancy  of  the  Venetians.  They  made 
no  quarrel  over  the  relative  merits  of  Plato  and  Aristotle, 
dug  up  no  classic  marbles,  had  no  revival  of  learning  in  a 
Florentine  sense.  They  were  merchant  princes,  winning 
wealth  by  commerce  and  expending  it  lavishly  in  beautifying 
their  island  home.  Not  to  attain  great  learning,  but  to  revel 
in  great  splendor,  seems  to  have  been  their  aim.  Life  in  the 
sovereign  city  of  the  sea  was  a worthy  existence  in  itself. 
And  her  geographical  and  political  position  aided  her  pros- 
perity. Unlike  Florence  she  was  not  torn  by  contending 
princes  within  and  foreign  foes  without — at  least  not  to  her 


education  of  the  Venetians  called  for  the  severe  or  the 
intellectual.  The  demand  was  for  rich  decoration  that 
would  please  the  senses  without  stimulating  the  intellect 
or  firing  the  imagination  to  any  great  extent.  Line  and 
form  were  not  so  well  suited  to  them  as  color — the  most 
sensuous  of  all  mediums.  Color  prevailed  through  Vene- 
tian art  from  the  very  beginning,  and  was  its  distinctive 
characteristic. 

Where  this  love  of  color  came  from  is  matter  of  specula- 


FIG.  35. — GIOVANNI  BELLINI.  MADONNA  OF  SS.  GEORGE  AND  PAUL.  VENICE  ACAD. 


78  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


harm.  She  had  her  wars,  but  they  were  generally  on  distant 
seas.  Popery,  Paganism,  Despotism,  all  the  convulsions  of 
Renaissance  life  threatened  but  harmed  her  not.  Free  and 
independent,  her  kingdom  was  the  sea,  and  her  livelihood 
commerce,  not  agriculture. 

The  worldly  spirit  of  the  Venetian  people  brought  about 
a worldly  and  luxurious  art.  Nothing  in  the  disposition  or 


ITALIAN  PAINTING. 


79 


tion.  Some  say  out  of  Venetian  skies  and  waters,  and, 
doubtless,  these  had  something  to  do  with  the  Venetian 
color-sense  ; but  Venice  in  its  color  was  also  an  example  of 
the  effect  of  commerce  on  art.  She  was  a trader  with  the 
East  from  her  infancy — not  Constantinople  and  the  Byzan- 
tine East  alone,  but  back  of  these  the  old  Mohammedan  East, 
which  for  a thousand  years  has  cast  its  art  in  colors  rather 
than  in  forms.  It  was  Eastern  ornament  in  mosaics,  stuffs, 
porcelains,  variegated  marbles,  brought  by  ship  to  Venice  and 
located  in  S.  Marco,  in  Murano,  and  in  Torcello,  that  first 
gave  the  color-impulse  to  the  Venetians.  If  Florence  was 
the  heir  of  Rome  and  its  austere  classicism,  Venice  was  the 
heir  of  Constantinople  and  its  color-charm.  The  two  great 
color  spots  in  Italy  at  this  day  are  Venice  and  Ravenna, 
commercial  footholds  of  the  Byzantines  in  Mediaeval  and 
Renaissance  days.  It  may  be  concluded  without  error  that 
Venice  derived  her  color-sense  and  much  of  her  luxurious 
and  material  view  of  life  from  the  East, 

THE  EARLY  VENETIAN  PAINTERS:  Painting  began  at  Venice 
with  the  fabrication  of  mosaics  and  ornamental  altar-pieces 
of  rich  gold  stucco-work.  The  “ Greek  manner  ” — that  is, 
the  Byzantine — was  practised  early  in  the  fifteenth  century 
by  Jaeobello  del  Fiore  and  Semitecolo,  but  it  did  not  last 
long.  Instead  of  lingering  for  a hundred  years,  as  at 
Florence,  it  died  a natural  death  in  the  first  half  of  the  fif- 
teenth century.  Gentile  da  Fabriano,  who  was  at  Venice 
about  1420,  painting  in  the  Ducal  Palace  with  Pisano  as  his 
assistant,  may  have  brought  this  about.  He  taught  there  in 
Venice,  was  the  master  of  Jacopo  Bellini,  and  if  not  the 
teacher  then  the  influencer  of  the  Vivarinis  of  Murano. 
There  were  two  of  the  Vivarinis  in  the  early  times,  so  far  as 
can  be  made  out,  Antonio  Vivarini  (?-i47o)  and  Barto- 
lommeo Vivarini  (fl.  1450-1499),  who  worked  with  Johannes 
Alemannus,  a painter  of  supposed  German  birth  and  training. 
They  all  signed  themselves  from  Murano  (an  outlying  Ve- 


8o 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


netian  island),  where  they  were  producing  church  altars  and 
ornaments  with  some  Paduan  influence  showing  in  their 
work.  They  made  up  the  Muranese  school,  though  this 
school  was  not  strongly  marked  apart  either  in  characteris- 
tics or  subjects  from  the  Venetian  school,  of  which  it  was,  in 
fact,  a part. 

Bartolommeo  was  the  best  of  the  group,  and  contended 
long  time  in  rivalry  with  the  Bellinis  at  Venice,  but  toward 
1470  he  fell  away  and  died  comparatively  forgotten.  Luigi 
Vivarini  (fl.  1461-1503)  was  the  latest  of  this  family,  and  with 


FIG.  36. — CARPACCIO.  PRESENTATION  (DETAIL).  VENICE  ACAD. 


his  death  the  history  of  the  Muranese  merges  into  the  Vene- 
tian school  proper,  except  as  it  continues  to  appear  in  some 
pupils  and«followers.  Of  these  latter  Carlo  Crivelli  (1430  ?- 


ITALIAN  PAINTING. 


8l 


1493  ?)  was  the  only  one  of  much  mark.  He  apparently 
gathered  his  art  from  many  sources — ornament  and  color 
from  the  Vivarini,  a lean  and  withered  type  from  the  early 
Paduans  under  Squarcione,  architecture  from  Mantegna, 
and  a rather  repulsive  sentiment  from  the  same  school.  His 
faces  were  contorted  and  sulky,  his  hands  and  feet  stringy, 
his  drawing  rather  bad ; but  he  had  a transparent  color,  beau- 
tiful ornamentation  and  not  a little  tragic  power. 

Venetian  art  practically  dates  from  the  Bellinis.  They 
did  not  begin  where  the  Vivarini  left  off.  The  two  families 
of  painters  seem  to  have  started  about  the  same  time,  worked 
along  together  from  like  inspirations,  and  in  somewhat  of  a 
similar  manner  as  regards  the  early  men.  Jacopo  Bellini 
(1400  ? -1464  ?)  was  the  pupil  of  Gentile-da  Fabriano,  and  a 
painter  of  considerable  rank.  His  son,  Gentile  Bellini  (1426  ?- 
I5°7),  was  likewise  a painter  of  ability,  and  an  extremely  in- 
teresting one  on  account  of  his  Venetian  subjects  painted 
with  much  open-air  effect  and  knowledge  of  light  and  atmos- 
phere. The  younger  son,  Giovanni  Bellini  (1428  ?— 1 5 1 6),  was 
the  greatest  of  the  family  and  the  true  founder  of  the  Vene- 
tian school. 

About  the  middle  of  the  fifteenth  century  the  Bellini 
family  lived  at  Padua  and  came  in  contact  with  the  classic- 
realistic  art  of  Mantegna.  In  fact,  Mantegna  married  Gio- 
vanni Bellini’s  sister,  and  there  was  a mingling  of  family  as 
well  as  of  art.  There  was  an  influence  upon  Mantegna  of 
Venetian  color,  and  upon  the  Bellinis  of  Paduan  line.  The 
latter  showed  in  Giovanni  Bellini’s  early  work,  which  was 
rather  hard,  angular  in  drapery,  and  anatomical  in  the 
joints,  hands,  and  feet ; but  as  the  century  drew  to  a close 
this  melted  away  into  the  growing  splendor  of  Venetian 
color.  Giovanni  Bellini  lived  into  the  sixteenth  century, 
but  never  quite  attained  the  rank  of  a High  Renaissance 
painter.  He  had  religious  feeling,  earnestness,  honesty, 
simplicity,  character,  force,  knowledge  ; but  not  the  full 
6 


82 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


complement  of  brilliancy  and  painter’s  power.  He  went 
beyond  all  his  contemporaries  in  technical  strength  and 
color-harmony,  and  was  in  fact  the  epoch-making  man  of 
early  Venice.  Some  of  his  pictures,  like  the  S.  Zaccaria  Ma- 
donna, will  compare  favorably  with  any  work  of  any  age,  and  his 
landscape  backgrounds  (see  the  St.  Peter  Martyr  in  the 
National  Gallery,  London)  were  rather  wonderful  for  the 
period  in  which  they  were  produced. 

Of  Bellini’s  contemporaries  and  followers  there  were 
many,  and  as  a school  there  was  a similarity  of  style,  sub- 
ject, and  color-treatment  carrying  through  them  all,  with 
individual  peculiarities  in  each  painter.  After  Giovanni 
Bellini  comes  Carpaccio  (?-i522  ?),  a younger  contemporary, 
about  whose  history  little  is  known.  He  worked  with  Gen- 
tile Bellini,  and  was  undoubtedly  influenced  by  Giovanni 
Bellini.  In  subject  he  was  more  romantic  and  chivalric 
than  religious,  though  painting  a number  of  altar-pieces. 
The  legend  was  his  delight,  and  his  great  success,  as  the 
St.  Ursula  and  St.  George  pictures  in  Venice  still  indicate. 
He  was  remarkable  for  his  knowledge  of  architecture,  cos- 
tumes, and  Oriental  settings,  put  forth  in  a realistic  way, 
with  much  invention  and  technical  ability  in  the  handling 
of  landscape,  perspective,  light,  and  color.  There  is  a truth- 
fulness of  appearance — an  out-of-doors  feeling — about  his 
work  that  is  quite  captivating.  In  addition,  the  spirit  of 
his  art  was  earnestness,  honesty,  and  sincerity,  and  even 
the  awkward  bits  of  drawing  which  occasionally  appeared 
in  his  work  served  to  add  to  the  general  naive  effect  of 
the  whole. 

Cima  da  Conegliano  (1460  ?— 1 517  ?)  was  probably  a pupil 
of  Giovanni  Bellini,  with  some  Carpaccio  influence  about 
him.  He  was  the  best  of  the  immediate  followers,  none 
of  whom  came  up  to  the  master.  They  were  trammelled 
somewhat  by  being  educated  in  distemper  work,  and  then 
midway  in  their  careers  changing  to  the  oil  medium,  that 


ITALIAN  PAINTING. 


83 


medium  having  been  introduced  into  Venice  by  Antonello 
da  Messina  in  1473.  Cima’s  subjects  were  largely  half-length 
madonnas,  given  with  strong  qualities  of  light-and-shade 


FIG.  37. — ANTONELLO  DA  MESSINA.  UNKNOWN  MAN.  LOUYKE. 


and  color.  He  was  not  a great  originator,  though  a man  of 
ability.  Catena  (?— 1 5 31)  had  a wide  reputation  in  his  day, 
but  it  came  more  from  a smooth  finish  and  pretty  acces- 
sories than  from  creative  power.  He  imitated  Bellini’s 
style  so  well  that  a number  of  his  pictures  pass  for  works  by 
the  master  even  to  this  day.  Later  he  followed  Giorgione 
and  Carpaccio.  A man  possessed  of  knowledge,  he  seemed 
to  have  no  original  propelling  purpose  behind  him.  That 
was  largely  the  make-up  of  the  other  men  of  the  school, 
Basaiti  (1490-1521  ?),  Previtali  (1470  ?),Bissolo  (1464- 


84 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


1528),  Rondinelli  (1440  ?-i5oo  ?),  Diana  (?-i 500  ?),  Mansueti 

(a.  1500). 

Antonello  da  Messina  (1444  ?-i493),  though  Sicilian  born, 
is  properly  classed  with  the  Venetian  school.  He  obtained 
a knowledge  of  Flemish  methods  probably  from  Flemish 
painters  or  pictures  in  Italy  (he  never  was  a pupil  of  Jan 
van  Eyck,  as  Vasari  relates,  and  probably  never  saw  Flan- 
ders), and  introduced  the  use  of  oil  as  a medium  in  the 
Venetian  school.  His  early  work  was  Flemish  in  character, 
and  was  very  accurate  and  minute.  His  late  work  showed 
the  influence  of  the  Bellinis.  His  counter-influence  upon 
Venetian  portraiture  has  never  been  quite  justly  estimated. 
That  fine,  exact,  yet  powerful  work,  of  which  the  Doge 
Loredano  by  Bellini,  in  the  National  Gallery,  London,  is  a 
type,  was  perhaps  brought  about  by  an  amalgamation  of 
Flemish  and  Venetian  methods,  and  Antonello  was  perhaps 
the  means  of  bringing  it  about.  He  was  an  excellent,  if 
precise,  portrait-painter. 

PRINCIPAL  WORKS:  Paduans — Andrea  Mantegna,  Eremitani  Pa- 
dua, Madonna  of  S.  Xeno  Verona,  St.  Sebastian  Vienna  Mus.,  St. 
George  Venice  Acad.,  Camera  di  Sposi  Castello  di  Corte  Mantua,  Ma- 
donna and  Allegories  Louvre,  Scipio  Summer  Autumn  Nat.  Gal.  Lon.; 
Pizzoli  (with  Mantegna),  Eremitani  Padua  ; Marco  Zoppo  frescos  Casa 
Colonna  Bologna,  Madonna  Berlin  Gal. 

Veronese  and  Vicentine  Painters — Vittore  Pisano,  St.  Anthony 
and  George  Nat.  Gal.  Lon.,  St.  George  S.  Anastasia  Verona;  Liberale 
da  Verona,  miniatures  Duomo  Sienna,  St.  Sebastian  Brera  Milan,  Ma- 
donna Berlin  Mus.,  other  works  Duomo  and  Gal.  Verona;  Bonsignori, 
S.  Bernardino  and  Gal.  Verona,  Mantua,  and  Nat.  Gal.  Lon. ; Caroto,  In 
S.  Tommaso,  S.  Giorgio,  S.  Caterina  and  Gal.  Verona,  Dresden  and 
Frankfort  Gals.;  Montagna,  Madonnas  Brera,  Venice  Acad.,  Bergamo. 
Berlin,  Nat.  Gal.  Lon.,  Louvre. 

Venetians — Jacobello  del  Fiore  and  Semitecolo,  all  attributions 
doubtful  ; Antonio  Vivarini  and  Johannes  Alemannus,  together  altar- 
pieces  Venice  Acad.,  S.  Zaccaria  Venice;  Antonio  alone,  Adoration  of 
Kings  Berlin  Gal.;  Bartolommeo  Vivarini,  Madonna  Bologna  Gal. 
(with  Antonio),  altar-pieces  SS.  Giovanni  e Paolo,  Frari,  Venice  ; Luigi 


ITALIAN  PAINTING. 


85 


Vivarini,  Madonna  Berlin  Gal.,  Frari  and  Acad.  Venice  ; Carlo  Crivelli, 
Madonnas  and  altar-pieces  Brera,  Nat.  Gal.  Lon.,  Lateran,  Berlin  Gals.; 
Jacopo  Bellini,  Crucifixion  Verona  Gal.,  Sketch-book  Brit.  Mus.;  Gentile 
Bellini,  Organ  Doors  S.  Marco,  Procession  and  Miracle  of  Cross  Acad. 
Venice,  St.  Mark  Brera  ; Giovanni  Bellini,  many  pictures  in  European 
galleries,  Acad.,  Frari,  S.  Zaccaria  SS.  Giovanni  e Paolo  Venice;  Car- 
paccio, Presentation  and  Ursula  pictures  Acad.,  St.  George  and  St.  Je- 
rome S.  Giorgio  da  Schiavone  Venice,  St.  Stephen  Berlin  Gal.;  Cima, 
altar-pieces  S.  Maria  dell  Orte,  S.  Giovanni  in  Bragora,  Acad.  Venice, 
Louvre,  Berlin,  Dresden,  Munich,  Vienna,  and  other  galleries ; Catena, 
Altar-pieces  S.  Simeone,  S.  M.  Mater  Domini,  SS.  Giovanni  e Paolo, 
Acad.  Venice,  Dresden,  and  in  Nat.  Gal.  Lon.  (the  Warrior  and  Horse 
attributed  to  “ School  of  Bellini”)  ; Basaiti,  Venice  Acad.  Nat.  Gal. 
Lon.,  Vienna,  and  Berlin  Gals.;  Previtali,  altar-pieces  S.  Spirito  Ber- 
gamo, Brera,  Berlin,  and  Dresden  Gals.,  Nat.  Gal.  Lon.,  Venice  Acad.; 
Bissolo,  Resurrection  Berlin  Gal.,  S.  Caterina  Venice  Acad.;  Rondinelli, 
two  pictures  Palazzo  Doria  Rome,  Holy  Family  (No.  6)  Louvre  (attributed 
to  Giovanni  Bellini) ; Diana,  Altar-pieces  Venice  Acad. ; Mansueti,  large 
pictures  Venice  Acad.;  Antonella  da  Messina,  Portraits  Louvre,  Berlin 
and  Nat.  Gal.  Lon.,  Crucifixion  Antwerp  Mus. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 


ITALIAN  PAINTING. 

THE  HIGH  RENAISSANCE  — 1500-1600. 

Books  Recommended  : Those  on  Italian  art  before  men- 
tioned, and  also,  Berenson,  Lorenzo  Lotto ; Clement,  Michel 
Ange,  L.  da  Vinci,  Raphael ; Crowe  and  Cavalcaselle,  Titian; 
same  authors,  Raphael;  Grimm,  Michael  Angelo  ; Meyer,  Cor- 
reggio ; Muntz,  Leonardo  da  Vinci;  Passavant,  Raphael ; Pater, 
Studies  in  History  of  Renaissance ; Phillips,  Titian;  Reumont, 
Andrea  del  Sarto;  Ricci,  Correggio;  Richter,  Leonardo  di 
Vinci;  Ridolfi,  Vita  di  Paolo  Cagliari  Veronese ; Springer, 
Rafael  und  Michel  Angelo  ; Symonds,  Michael  Angelo  ; Taine, 
Italy — Florence  and  Venice . 

THE  HIGHEST  DEVELOPMENT : The  word  “ Renaissance  ” 
has  a broader  meaning  than  its  strict  etymology  would 
imply.  It  was  a “ new  birth,”  but  something  more  than 
the  revival  of  Greek  learning  and  the  study  of  nature  en- 
tered into  it.  It  was  the  grand  consummation  of  Italian 
intelligence  in  many  departments — the  arrival  at  maturity 
of  the  Christian  trained  mind  tempered  by  the  philoso- 
phy of  Greece,  and  the  knowledge  of  the  actual  world. 
Fully  aroused  at  last,  the  Italian  intellect  became  inquisi- 
tive, inventive,  scientific,  skeptical — yes,  treacherous,  immor- 
al, polluted.  It  questioned  all  things,  doubted  where  it 
pleased,  saturated  itself  with  crime,  corruption,  and  sensual- 
ity, yet  bowed  at  the  shrine  of  the  beautiful  and  knelt  at  the 
altar  of  Christianity.  It  is  an  illustration  of  the  contra- 
dictions that  may  exist  when  the  intellectual,  the  religious, 


ITALIAN  PAINTING.  87 

and  the  moral  are  brought  together,  with  the  intellectual  in 
predominance. 

And  that  keen  Renaissance  intellect  made  swift  prog- 
ress. It  remodelled  the  philosophy  of  Greece,  and 
used  its  literature  as  a mould  for  its  own.  It  developed 
Roman  law  and  introduced  modern  science.  The  world 


FIG.  38. — FRA  BARTOLOMMEO.  DESCENT  FROM  CROSS.  PITTI. 


without  and  the  world  within  were  rediscovered.  Land 
and  sea,  starry  sky  and  planetary  system,  were  fixed  upon 
the  chart.  Man  himself,  the  animals,  the  planets,  organic 
and  inorganic  life,  the  small  things  of  the  earth  gave  up 
their  secrets.  Inventions  utilized  all  classes  of  products, 
commerce  flourished,  free  cities  were  builded,  universities 
arose,  learning  spread  itself  on  the  pages  of  newly  invented 
books  of  print,  and,  perhaps,  greatest  of  all,  the  arts  arose 
on  strong  wings  of  life  to  the  very  highest  altitude. 


88 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


For  the  moral  side  of  the  Renaissance  intellect  it  had  its 
tastes  and  refinements,  as  shown  in  its  high  quality  of  art ; 
but  it  also  had  its  polluting  and  degrading  features,  as  shown 
in  its  political  and  social  life.  Religion  was  visibly  weakening 
though  the  ecclesiastical  still  held  strong.  People  were 
forgetting  the  faith  of  the  early  days,  and  taking  up  with 
the  material  things  about  them.  They  were  glorifying  the 
human  and  exalting  the  natural.  The  story  of  Greece  was 
being  repeated  in  Italy.  And  out  of  this  new  worship 
came  jewels 'of  rarity  and  beauty,  but  out  of  it  also  came 
faithlessness,  corruption,  vice. 

Strictly  speaking,  the  Renaissance  had  been  accomplished 
before  the  year  1500,  but  so  great  was  its  impetus  that,  in 
the  arts  at  least-,  it  extended  half-way  through  the  sixteenth 
century.  Then  it  began  to  fail  through  exhaustion. 

MOTIVES  AND  METHODS:  The  religious  subject  still  held 
with  the  painters,  but  this  subject  in  High-Renaissance 
days  did  not  carry  with  it  the  religious  feeling  as  in  Gothic 
days.  Art  had  grown  to  be  something  else  than  a teacher 
of  the  Bible.  In  the  painter’s  hands  it  had  come  to  mean 
beauty  for  its  own  sake — a picture  beautiful  for  its  form 
and  color,  regardless  of  its  theme.  This  was  the  teaching 
of  antique  art,  and  the  study  of  nature  but  increased  the 
belief.  A new  love  had  arisen  in  the  outer  and  visible 
world,  and  when  the  Church  called  for  altar-pieces  the  pain- 
ters painted  their  new  love,  christened  it  with  a religious 
title,  and  handed  it  forth  in  the  name  of  the  old.  Thus  art 
began  to  free  itself  from  Church  domination  and  to  live 
as  an  independent  beauty.  The  general  motive,  then,  of 
painting  during  the  High  Renaissance,  though  apparently 
religious  from  the  subject,  and  in  many  cases  still  religious 
in  feeling,  was  largely  to  show  the  beauty  of  form  or  color, 
in  which  religion,  the  antique,  and  the  natural  came  in  as 
modifying  elements. 

In  technical  methods,  though  extensive  work  was  still 


ITALIAN  PAINTING. 


89 


jects.  Probably  this  was  largely  due  to  the  classic  bias  of 
the  painters  and  the  intellectual  and  social  influences  of 
Florence  and  Rome.  Line  and  composition  were  means  of 


done  in  fresco,  especially  at  Florence  and  Rome,  yet  the 
bulk  of  High-Renaissance  painting  was  in  oils  upon  panel 
and  canvas.  At  Venice  even  the  decorative  wall  paintings 
were  upon  canvas,  afterward  inserted  in  wall  or  ceiling. 

THE  FLORENTINES  AND  ROMANS:  There  was  a severity 
and  austerity  about  the  Florentine  art,  even  at  its  climax. 
It  was  never  too  sensuous  and  luxurious,  but  rather  exact 
and  intellectual.  The  Florentines  were  fond  of  lustreless 
fresco,  architectural  composition,  towering  or  sweeping 
lines,  rather  sharp  color  as  compared  with  the  Venetians, 
and  theological,  classical,  even  literary  and  allegorical  sub- 


FIG.  39. — ANDREA  DEL  SARTO.  MADONNA  OF  ST.  FRANCIS.  UFFIZI. 


90 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


expressing  abstract  thought  better  than  color,  though  some 
of  the  Florentines  employed  both  line  and  color  know- 
ingly. 

This  was  the  case  with  Fra  Bartolommeo  (1475-1517)^ 
monk  of  San  Marco,  who  was  a transition  painter  from  the 
fifteenth  to  the  sixteenth  century.  He  was  a religionist,  a 
follower  of  Savonarola,  and  a man  of  soul  who  thought  to 
do  work  of  a religious  character  and  feeling  ; but  he  was 
also  a fine  painter,  excelling  in  composition,  drawing,  drap- 
ery, color.  The  painter’s  element  in  his  work,  its  material 
and  earthly  beauty,  rather  detracted  from  its  spiritual 
significance.  He  opposed  the  sensuous  and  the  nude,  and 
yet  about  the  only  nude  he  ever  painted — a St.  Sebastian 
for  San  Marco — had  so  much  of  the  earthly  about  it  that 
people  forgot  the  suffering  saint  in  admiring  the  fine  body, 
and  the  picture  had  to  be  removed  from  the  convent.  In 
such  ways  religion  in  art  was  gradually  undermined, 
not  alone  by  naturalism  and  classicism  but  by  art  itself. 
Painting  brought  into  life  by  religion  no  sooner  reached 
maturity  than  it  led  people  away  from  religion  by  pointing 
out  sensuous  beauties  in  the  type  rather  than  religious 
beauties  in  the  symbol. 

Fra  Bartolommeo  was  among  the  last  of  the  pietists  in 
art.  He  had  no  great  imagination,  but  some  feeling  and  a 
fine  color-sense  for  Florence.  Naturally  he  was  influenced 
somewhat  by  the  great  ones  about  him,  learning  perspective 
from  Raphael,  grandeur  from  Michael  Angelo,  and  contours 
from  Leonardo  da  Vinci.  He  worked  in  collaboration  with 
Albertinelli  (1474-15 15),  a skilled  artist  and  a fellow-pupil 
with  Bartolommeo  in  the  workshop  of  Cosimo  Rosselli.  Their 
work  is  so  much  alike  that  it  is  often  difficult  to  distinguish 
the  painters  apart.  Albertinelli  was  not  so  devout  as  his 
companion,  but  he  painted  the  religious  subject  with  feeling, 
as  his  Visitation  in  the  Ufftzt-  indicates.  Among  the  follow- 
ers of  Bartolommeo  and  Albertinelli  were  Fra  Paolino  (1490- 


ITALIAN  PAINTING. 


9 


1547),  Bugiardini  (1475-1554),  Granacci  (1477-1543),  who 
showed  many  influences,  and  Ridolfo  Ghirlandajo  (1483-1561). 
Andrea  del  Sarto  (1486-1531)  was  a Florentine  pure  and 


FIG.  40. —MICHAEL  ANGELO.  ATHLETE.  SISTINE,  ROME. 


simple — a painter  for  the  Church,  producing  many  madonnas 
and  altar-pieces,  and  yet  possessed  of  little  religious  feeling 
or  depth.  He  was  a painter  more  than  a pietist,  and  was 
called  by  his  townsmen  “ the  faultless  painter.”  So  he  was 
as  regards  the  technical  features  of  his  art.  He  was  the 
best  brushman  and  colorist  of  the  Florentine  school.  Deal- 
ing largely  with  the  material  side  his  craftsmanship  was  ex- 
cellent and  his  pictures  exuberant  with  life  and  color,  but 
his  madonnas  and  saints  were  decidedly  of  the  earth — hand- 
some Florentine  models  garbed  as  sacred  characters — well- 


92 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


drawn  and  easily  painted,  with  little  devotional  feeling 
about  them.  He  was  influenced  by  other  painters  to  some 
extent.  Masaccio,  Ghirlandajo,  and  Michael  Angelo  were 
his  models  in  drawing  ; Leonardo  and  Bartolommeo  in  con- 
tours ; while  in  warmth  of  color,  brush-work,  atmospheric  and 
landscape  effects  he  was  quite  by  himself.  He  had  a large 
number  of  pupils  and  followers,  but  most  of  them  deserted 
him  later  on  to  follow  Michael  Angelo.  Pontormo  (1493-1558) 
and  Franciabigio  (1482-1525)  were  among  the  best  of  them. 

Michael  Angelo  (1474-1564)  has  been  called  the  “ Prophet 
of  the  Renaissance,”  and  perhaps  deserves  the  title,  since 
he  was  more  of  the  Old  Testament  than  the  New — more  of 
the  austere  and  imperious  than  the  loving  or  the  forgiving. 
There  was  no  sentimental  feature  about  his  art.  His  con- 
ception was  intellectual,  highly  imaginative,  mysterious,  at 
times  disordered  and  turbulent  in  its  strength.  He  came 
the  nearest  to  the  sublime  of  any  painter  in  history  through 
the  sole  attribute  of  power.  He  had  no  tenderness  nor  any 
winning  charm.  He  did  not  win,  but  rather  commanded. 
Everything  he  saw  or  felt  was  studied  for  the  strength  that 
was  in  it.  Religion,  Old-Testament  history,  the  antique, 
humanity,  all  turned  in  his  hands  into  symbolic  forms  of 
power,  put  forth  apparently  in  the  white  heat  of  passion,  and 
at  times  in  defiance  of  every  rule  and  tradition  of  art.  Per- 
sonal feeling  was  very  apparent  in  his  work,  and  in  this 
he  was  as  far  removed  as  possible  from  the  Greeks,  and 
nearer  to  what  one  would  call  to-day  a romanticist.  There 
was  little  of  the  objective  about  him.  He  was  not  an  imi- 
tator of  facts  but  a creator  of  forms  and  ideas.  His  art  was 
a reflection  of  himself — a self-sufficient  man,  positive,  crea- 
tive, standing  alone,  a law  unto  himself. 

Technically  he  was  more  of  a sculptor  than  a painter.  He 
said  so  himself  when  Julius  commanded  him  to  paint  the 
Sistine  ceiling,  and  he  told  the  truth.  He  was  a magnificent 
draughtsman,  and  drew  magnificent  sculpturesque  figures  on 


ITALIAN  PAINTING. 


93 


the  Sistine  vault.  That  was  about  all  his  achievement 
with  the  brush.  In  color,  light,  air,  perspective — in  all  those 
features  peculiar  to  the  painter — he  was  behind  his  contem- 
poraries. Composition  he  knew  a great  deal  about,  and  in 
drawing  he  had  the  most  positive,  far-reaching  command  of 
line  of  any  painter  of  any  time.  It  was  in  drawing  that  he 
showed  his  power.  Even  this  is  severe  and  harsh  at  times, 
and  then  again  filled  with  a grace  that  is  majestic  and  in 
scope  universal,  as  wit- 
ness “the  Creation  of 
Adam  in  the  Sistine. 

He  came  out  of  Flor- 
ence, a pupil  of  Ghirlan- 
dajo,  with  a school  feel- 
ing for  line,  stimulated 
by  the  frescos  of  Masac- 
cio and  Signorelli.  At 
an  early  age  he  declared 
himself,  and  hewed  a 
path  of  his  own  through 
art,  sweeping  along  with 
him  many  of  the  slighter 
painters  of  his  age. 

Long  - lived  he  saw  his 
contemporaries  die 
about  him  and  Human- 
ism end  in  bloodshed 
with  the  coming  of  the 

Jesuits;  but  alone  fig.  41— RAPHAEL,  la  belle  jardiniere. 

f LOUVRE. 

gloomy,  resolute,  stead- 
fast to  his  belief,  he  held  his  way,  the  last  great  representa- 
tive of  Florentine  art,  the  first  great  representative  of  in- 
dividualism in  art.  With  him  and  after  him  came  many  fol- 
lowers who  strove  to  imitate  his  “terrible  style,”  but  they 
did  not  succeed  any  too  well. 


94 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


The  most  of  these  followers  find  classification  under  the 
Mannerists  of  the  Decadence.  Of  those  who  were  im- 
mediate pupils  of  Michael  Angelo,  or  carried  out  his  de- 
signs, Daniele  da  Volterra  (1509-1566)  was  one  of  the  most 
satisfactory.  His  chief  work,  the  Descent  from  the  Cross, 
was  considered  by  Poussin  as  one  of  the  three  great  pict- 
ures of  the  world.  It  is  sometimes  said  to  have  been  de- 
signed by  Michael  Angelo,  but  that  is  only  a conjecture.  It 
has  much  action  and  life  in  it,  but  is  somewhat  affected  in 
pose  and  gesture,  and  Volterra’s  work  generally  was  de- 
ficient in  real  energy  of  conception  and  execution,  Mar- 
cello Venusti  (1515-1585?)  painted  directly  from  Michael 
Angelo’s  designs  in  a delicate  and  precise  way,  probably  im- 
bibed from  his  master,  Perino  del  Vaga,  and  from  associa- 
tion with  Venetians  like  Sebastiano  del  Piombo  (1485-1547). 
This  last-named  painter  was  born  in  Venice  and  trained 
under  Bellini  and  Giorgione,  inheriting  the  color  and  light- 
and-shade  qualities  of  the  Venetians  ; but  later  on  he  went 
to  Rome  and  came  under  the  influence  of  Michael  Angelo 
and  Raphael.  He  tried,  under  Michael  Angelo’s  inspira- 
tion it  is  said,  to  unite  the  Florentine  grandeur  of  line 
with  the  Venetian  coloring,  and  thus  outdo  Raphael.  It 
was  not  wholly  successful,  though  resulting  in  an  excellent 
quality  of  art.  As  a portrait-painter  he  was  above  re- 
proach. His  early  works  were  rather  free  in  impasto,  the 
late  ones  smooth  and  shiny,  in  imitation  of  Raphael. 

Raphael  Sanzio  (1483-1520)  was  more  Greek  in  method 
than  any  of  the  great  Renaissance  painters.  In  subject  he 
was  not  more  classic  than  others  of  his  time  ; he  painted 
all  subjects.  In  thought  he  was  not  particularly  classic  ; he 
was  chiefly  intellectual,  with  a leaning  toward  the  sensuous 
that  was  half-pagan.  It  was  in  method  and  expression 
more  than  elsewhere  that  he  showed  the  Greek  spirit.  He 
aimed  at  the  ideal  and  the  universal,  independent,  so  far  as 
possible,  of  the  individual,  and  sought  by  a union  of  all 


ITALIAN  PAINTING. 


95 


elements  to  produce  perfect  harmony.  The  Harmonist  of 
the  Renaissance  is  his  title.  And  this  harmony  extended 
to  a blending  of  thought,  form,  and  expression,  heightening 
or  modifying  every  element  until  they  ran  together  with 
such  rhythm  that  it  could  not  be  seen  where  one  left  off 
and  another  began.  He  was  the  very  opposite  of  Michael 
Angelo.  The  art  of  the  latter  was  an  expression  of  in- 
dividual power  and  was  purely  subjective.  Raphael’s  art 
was  largely  a unity  of  objective  beauties,  with  the  personal 
element  as  much  in  abeyance  as  was  possible  for  his  time. 

His  education  was  a cultivation  of  every  grace  of  mind 
and  hand.  He  assimilated  freely  whatever  he  found  to  be 
good  in  the  art  about  him.  A pupil  of  Perugino  origi- 
nally, he  levied  upon  features  of  excellence  in  Masaccio,  Fra 
Bartolommeo,  Leonardo,  Michael  Angelo.  From  the  first 
he  got  tenderness,  from  the  second  drawing,  from  the  third 
color  and  composition,  from  the  fourth  charm,  from  the 
fifth  force.  Like  an  eclectic  Greek  he  drew  from  all 
sources,  and  then  blended  and  united  these  features  in  a 
peculiar  style  of  his  own  and  stamped  them  with  his  pecul- 
iar Raphaelesque  stamp. 

In  subject  Raphael  was  religious  and  mythological,  but 
he  was  imbued  with  neither  of  these  so  far  as  the  initial 
spirit  was  concerned.  He  looked  at  all  subjects  in  a calm, 
intellectual,  artistic  way.  Even  the  celebrated  Sistine 
Madonna  is  more  intellectual  than  pietistic,  a Christian 
Minerva  ruling  rather  than  helping  to  save  the  world. 
The  same  spirit  ruled  him  in  classic  and  theological 
themes.  He  did  not  feel  them  keenly  or  qxecute  them 
passionately — at  least  there  is  no  indication  of  it  in  his 
work.  The  doing  so  would  have  destroyed  unity,  sym- 
metry, repose.  The  theme  was  ever  held  in  check  by  a 
regard  for  proportion  and  rhythm.  To  keep  all  artistic 
elements  in  perfect  equilibrium,  allowing  no  one  to  pre- 
dominate, seemed  the  mainspring  of  his  action,  and  in 


96 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


doing  this  he  created  that  harmony  which  his  admirers 
sometimes  refer  to  as  pure  beauty. 

For  his  period  and  school  he  was  rather  remarkable  tech- 
nically. He  excelled  in  everything  except  brush-work, 
which  was  never  brought  to  maturity  in  either  Florence  or 
Rome.  Even  in  color  he  was  fine  for  Florence,  though  not 
equal  to  the  Venetians.  In  composition,  modelling,  line, 
even  in  texture  painting  (see  his  portraits)  he  was  a man  of 
accomplishment ; while  in  grace,  purity,  serenity,  loftiness 
he  was  the  Florentine  leader  easily  first. 


FIG.  42. — GIULIO  ROMANO.  APOLLO  AND  MUSES.  PITTI. 


The  influence  of  Raphael’s  example  was  largely  felt 
throughout  Central  Italy,  and  even  at  the  north,  result- 
ing in  many  imitators  and  followers,  who  tried  to  produce 
Raphaelesque  effects.  Their  efforts  were  usually  success- 
ful in  precipitating  charm  into  sweetness  and  sentiment 
into  sentimentality.  Francesco  Penni  (i488?-i528)  seems 
to  have  been  content  to  work  under  Raphael  with  some 
ability.  Giulio  Romano  (1492-1546)  was  the  strongest  of 
the  pupils,  and  became  the  founder  and  leader  of  the  Roman 
school,  which  had  considerable  influence  upon  the  painters 
of  the  Decadence.  He  adopted  the  classic  subject  and 
tried  to  adopt  Raphael’s  style,  but  he  was  not  completely 


ITALIAN  PAINTING. 


9 7 


successful.  Raphael’s  refinement  in  Giulio’s  hands  became 
exaggerated  coarseness.  He  was  a good  draughtsman,  but 
rather  hot  as  a colorist,  and  a composer  of  violent,  restless, 
and,  at  times,  contorted  groups.  He  was  a prolific  painter, 
but  his  work  tended  toward  the  baroque  style,  and  had  a 
bad  influence  on  the  succeeding  schools. 

Primaticcio  (1504-1570)  was  one  of  his  followers,  and  had 
much  to  do  with  the  founding  of  the  school  of  Fontaine- 
bleau in  France.  Giovanni  da  Udine  (1487-1564),  a Venetian 
trained  painter,  became  a follower  of  Raphael,  his  only 
originality  showing  in  decorative  designs.  Perino  del  Vaga 
(1500-1547)  was  of  the  same  cast  of  mind.  Andrea  Sabbatini 
(i48o?~i545)  carried  Raphael’s  types  and  methods  to  the 
south  of  Italy,  and  some  artists  at  Bologna,  and  in  Umbria, 
like  Innocenza  da  Imola  (1494-1550  ?),  and  Timoteo  di  Viti 
(1469-1523),  adopted  the  Raphael  type  and  method  to  the 
detriment  of  what  native  talent  they  may  have  possessed, 
though  about  Timoteo  there  is  some  doubt  whether  he 
adopted  Raphael’s  type,  or  Raphael  his  type. 

PRINCIPAL  WORKS:  Florentines  — Fra  Bartolommeo,  Descent 
from  the  Cross  Salvator  Mundi  St.  Mark  Pitti,  Madonnas  and  Prophets 
Uffizi,  other  pictures  Florence  Acad.,  Louvre,  Vienna  Gal.;  Albertinelli, 
Visitation  Uffizi,  Christ  Magdalene  Madonna  Louvre,  Trinity  Madonna 
Florence  Acad.,  Annunciation  Munich  Gal.;  Fra  Paolino,  works  at  San 
Spirito  Sienna,  S.  Domenico  and  S.  Paolo  Pistoia,  Madonna  Florence 
Acad.;  Bugiardini,  Madonna  Uffizi,  St.  Catherine  S.  M.  Novella  Flor- 
ence, Nativity  Berlin,  St.  Catherine  Bologna  Gal.;  Granacci,  altar-pieces 
Uffizi,  Pitti,  Acad.  Florence,  Berlin  and  Munich  Gals.;  Ridolfo  Ghirlan- 
dajo,  S.  Zenobio  pictures  Uffizi,  also  Louvre  and  Berlin  Gal.;  Andrea 
del  Sarto,  many  pictures  in  Uffizi  and  Pitti,  Louvre,  Berlin,  Dresden, 
Madrid,  Nat.  Gal.  Lon.,  frescos  S.  Annunziata  and  the  Scalzo  Florence  ; 
Pontormo,  frescos  Annunziata  Florence,  Visitation  and  Madonna  Louvre, 
portrait  Berlin  Gal.,  Supper  at  Emmaus  Florence  Acad.,  other  works  Uffizi ; 
Franciabigio,  frescos  courts  of  the  Servi  and  Scalzo  Florence,  Bathsheba 
Dresden  Gal.,  many  portraits  in  Louvre,  Pitti,  Berlin  Gal.;  Michael 
Angelo,  frescos  Sistine  Rome,  Holy  Family  Uffizi ; Daniele  da  Volterra, 

7 


98 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


frescos  Hist,  of  Cross  Trinita  de’  Monti  Rome,  Innocents  Uffizi  ; Venusti, 
frescos  Castel  San  Angelo,  S.  Spirito  Rome,  Annunciation  St.  John  Lat- 
eran  Rome  ; Sebastiano  del  Piombo,  Lazarus  Nat.  Gal.  Lon.,  Pieta 
Viterbo,  Fornarina  Uffizi  (ascribed  to  Raphael)  Fornarina  and  Christ  Bear- 
ing Cross  Berlin  and  Dresden  Gals.,  Agatha  Pitti,  Visitation  Louvre,  por- 
trait Doria  Gal.  Rome  ; Raphael,  Marriage  of  Virgin  Brera,  Madonna 
and  Vision  of  Knight  Nat.  Gal.  Lon.,  Madonnas  St.  Michael  and  St. 
George  Louvre,  many  Madonnas  and  portraits  in  Uffizi,  Pitti,  Munich, 
Vienna,  St.  Petersburg!!,  Madrid  Gals.,  Sistine  Madonna  Dresden,  chief 
frescos  Vatican  Rome. 

Romans  : Giulio  Romano,  frescos  Sala  di  Constantino  Vatican  Rome 
(with  Francesco  Penni  after  Raphael),  Palazzo  del  Te  Mantua,  St.  Stephen, 
S Stefano  Genoa,  Holy  Family  Dresden  Gal.,  other  works  in  Louvre, 
Nat.  Gal.  Lon.,  Pitti,  Uffizi ; Primaticcio,  works  attributed  to  him  doubt- 
ful— Scipio  Louvre,  Lady  at  Toilet  and  Venus  Musee  de  Cluny  ; Giovanni 
da  Udine,  decorations,  arabesques  and  grotesques  in  Vatican  Loggia; 
Perino  del  Vaga,  Hist,  of  Joshua  and  David  Vatican  (with  Raphael), 
frescos  Trinity  de’  Monti  and  Castel  S.  Angelo  Rome,  Creation  of  Eve 
S.  Marcello  Rome  ; Sabbatini,  Adoration  Naples  Mus.,  altar-pieces  in 
Naples  and  Salerno  churches  ; Innocenza  da  Imola,  works  in  Bologna, 
Berlin  and  Munich  Gals.;  Timoteo  di  Viti,  Church  of  the  Pace  Rome 
(after  Raphael),  madonnas  and  Magdalene  Brera,  Acad,  of  St.  Luke 
Rome,  Bologna  Gal.,  S.  Domenico  Urbino,  Gubbio  Cathedral. 


CHAPTER  IX. 


ITALIAN  PAINTING. 

THE  HIGH  RENAISSANCE,  I 500  - 1 600.—  CONTINUED. 

Books  Recommended : The  works  on  Italian  art  before 
mentioned  and  consult  also  the  General  Bibliography  (p.  xvd 

LEONARDO  DA  VINCI  AND  THE  MILANESE:  The  third  per- 
son in  the  great  Florentine  trinity  of  painters  was  Leonardo 
da  Vinci  (1452-15 19),  the  other  two  being  Michael  Angelo 
and  Raphael.  He  greatly  influenced  the  school  of  Milan, 
and  has  usually  been  classed  with  the  Milanese,  yet  he 
was  educated  in  Florence,  in  the  workshop  of  Verrocchio, 
and  was  so  universal  in  thought  and  methods  that  he  hardly 
belongs  to  any  school. 

He  has  been  named  a realist,  an  idealist,  a magician,  a 
wizard,  a dreamer,  and  finally  a scientist,  by  different  writers, 
yet  he  was  none  of  these  things  while  being  all  of  them — a 
full-rounded,  universal  man,  learned  in  many  departments 
and  excelling  in  whatever  he  undertook.  He  had  the  scien- 
tific and  experimental  way  of  looking  at  things.  That  is 
perhaps  to  be  regretted,  since  it  resulted  in  his  experiment- 
ing with  everything  and  completing  little  of  anything.  His 
different  tastes  and  pursuits  pulled  him  different  ways,  and 
his  knowledge  made  him  sceptical  of  his  own  powers.  He 
pondered  and  thought  how  to  reach  up  higher,  how  to  pene- 
trate deeper,  how  to  realize  more  comprehensively,  and  in 
the  end  he  gave  up  in  despair.  He  could  not  fulfil  his  ideal 
of  the  head  of  Christ  nor  the  head  of  Mona  Lisa,  and  after 


IOO 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


years  of  labor  he  left  them  unfinished.  The  problem  of 
human  life,  the  spirit,  the  world  engrossed  him,  and  all  his 
creations  seem  impregnated  with  the  psychological,  the 
mystical,  the  unattainable,  the  hidden. 


FIG.  43. — LEONARDO  DA  VINCI.  MONA  LISA.  LOUVRE. 


He  was  no  religionist,  though  painting  the  religious  sub- 
ject with  feeling  ; he  was  not  in  any  sense  a classicist, 
nor  had  he  any  care  for  the  antique  marbles,  which  he  con- 
sidered a study  of  nature  at  second-hand.  He  was  more  in 
love  with  physical  life  without  being  an  enthusiast  over  it. 
His  regard  for  contours,  rhythm  of  line,  blend  of  light  with 
shade,  study  of  atmosphere,  perspective,  trees,  animals,  hu- 
manity, show  that  though  he  examined  nature  scientifically, 
he  pictured  it  aesthetically.  In  his  types  there  is  much 


ITALIAN  PAINTING. 


IOI 


sweetness  of  soul,  charm  of  disposition,  dignity  of  mien,  even 
grandeur  and  majesty  of  presence.  His  people  we  would 
like  to  know  better.  They  are  full  of  life,  intelligence,  sym- 
pathy ; they  have  fascination  of  manner,  winsomeness  of 
mood,  grace  of  bearing.  We  see  this  in  his  best-known 
work — the  Mona  Lisa  of  the  Louvre.  It  has  much  allure- 
ment of  personal  presence,  with  a depth  and  abundance  of 
soul  altogether  charming. 

Technically,  Leonardo  was  not  a handler  of  the  brush 
superior  in  any  way  to  his  Florentine  contemporaries.  He 
knew  all  the  methods  and  mediums  of  the  time,  and  did 
much  to  establish  oil-painting  among  the  Florentines,  but  he 
was  never  a painter  like  Titian,  or  even  Correggio  or  Andrea 
del  Sarto.  A splendid  draughtsman,  a man  of  invention, 
imagination,  grace,  elegance,  and  power,  he  nevertheless 
carried  more  by  mental  penetration  and  aesthetic  sense  than 
by  his  technical  skill.  He  was  one  of  the  great  men  of  the 
Renaissance,  and  deservedly  holds  a place  in  the  front  rank. 

Though  Leonardo’s  accomplishment  seems  slight  because 
of  the  little  that  is  left  to  us,  yet  he  had  a great  following 
not  only  among  the  Florentines  but  at  Milan,  where  Vin- 
cenza  Foppa  had  started  a school  in  the  Early  Renaissance 
time.  Leonardo  was  there  for  fourteen  years,  and  his  artistic 
personality  influenced  many  painters  to  adopt  his  type  and 
methods.  Bernardino  Lnini  (1475  ? — x533  ?)  was  the  m°st 
prominent  of  the  disciples.  He  cultivated  Leonardo’s  sen- 
timent, style,  subjects,  and  composition  in  his  middle  period, 
but  later  on  developed  independence  and  originality.  He 
came  at  a period  of  art  when  that  earnestness  of  characteri- 
zation which  marked  the  early  men  was  giving  way  to  grace- 
fulness of  recitation,  and  that  was  the  chief  feature  of  his  art. 
For  that  matter  gracefulness  and  pathetic  sweetness  of 
mood,  witlj^purit^of  line  and  warmth  of  color  characterized' 
all  the  Milanese  painters. 

The  more  prominent  lights  of  the  school  were  Salaino 


102 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


(fl.  1495-1518),  of  whose  work  nothing  authentic  exists, 
Beltraffio  (1467-15 16),  a painter  of  limitations  but  of  much 
refinement  and  purity,  and  Marco  da  Oggiono  (i47o?-i53o)  a 
close  follower  of  Leonardo.  Solario  (1458  ? — 1 515  ?)  probably 
became  acquainted  early  with  the  Flemish  mode  of  working 


practised  by  Antonello  da  Messina,  but  he  afterward  came 
under  Leonardo’s  spell  at  Milan.  He  was  a careful,  refined 
painter,  possessed  of  feeling  and  tenderness,  producing  pict- 
ures with  enamelled  surfaces  and  much  detail.  Giampietrino 
(fl-  1520-1540)  and  Cesare  da  Sesto  (1485  ?-i523  ?)  were  also 
of  the  Milanese  school,  the  latter  afterward  falling  under  the 
Raphael  influence.  Gaudenzio  Ferrara  (1481  ?- 1547  ?),  an 
exceptionally  brilliant  colorist  and  a painter  of  much  dis- 


ITALIAN  PAINTING. 


103 


tinction,  was  under  Leonardo’s  influence  at  one  time,  and 
with  the  teachings  of  that  master  he  mingled  a little  of 
Raphael  in  the  type  of  face.  He  was  an  uneven  painter, 
often  excessive  in  sentiment,  but  at  his  best  one  of  the  most 
charming  of  the  northern  painters. 

SODOMA  AND  THE  SIENNESE:  Sienna,  alive  in  the  four- 
teenth century  to  all  that  was  stirring  in  art,  in  the  fifteenth 
century  was  in  complete  eclipse,  no  painters  of  consequence 
emanating  from  there  or  being  established  there.  In  the 
sixteenth  century  there  was  a revival  of  art  because  of  a 
northern  painter  settling  there  and  building  up  a new  school. 
This  painter  was  Sodoma  (1477  ?-i549).  He  was  one  of  the 
best  pupils  of  Leonardo  da  Vinci,  a master  of  the  human 
figure,  handling  it  with  much  grace  and  charm  of  expression, 
but  not  so  successful  with  groups  or  studied  compositions, 
wherein  he  was  inclined  to  huddle  and  over-crowd  space. 
He  was  afterward  led  off  by  the  brilliant  success  of  Raphael, 
and  adopted  something  of  that  master’s  style.  His  best  work 
was  done  in  fresco,  though  he  did  some  easel  pictures  that 
have  darkened  very  much  through  time.  He  was  a friend 
of  Raphael,  and  his  portrait  appears  beside  Raphael’s  in  the 
latter  painter’s  celebrated  School  of  Athens.  The  pupils 
and  followers  of  the  Siennese  School  were  not  men  of  great 
strength.  Pacchiarotta  (1474-1540  ?),  Girolamo  della  Pacchia 
(1477-1535),  Peruzzi  (1481-1536),  a half-Lombard  half- 
Umbrian  painter  of  ability,  and  Beccafumi  (1486-155  1)  were 
the  principal  lights.  The  influence  of  the  school  was  slight. 

FERRARA  AND  BOLOGNESE  SCHOOLS:  The  painters  of  these 
schools  during  the  sixteenth  century  have  usually  been 
classed  among  the  followers  and  imitators  of  Raphael,  but 
not  without  some  injustice.  The  influence  of  Raphael  was 
great  throughout  Central  Italy,  and  the  Ferrarese  and 
Bolognese  felt  it,  but  not  to  the  extinction  of  their  native 
thought  and  methods.  Moreover,  there  was  some  influence 
in  color  coming  from  the  Venetian  school,  but  again  not  to 


104 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


the  entire  extinction  of  Ferrarese  individuality.  Dosso  Dossi 
(1479  ?— 1 542),  at  Ferrara,  a pupil  of  Lorenzo  Costa,  was  the 
chief  painter  of  the  time,  and  he  showed  more  of  Giorgione 
in  color  and  light-and-shade  than  anyone  else,  yet  he  never 
abandoned  the  yellows,  greens,  and  reds  peculiar  to  Ferrara, 
and  both  he  and  Garofolo  were  strikingly  original  in  their 
background  landscapes.  Garofolo  (1481-1559)  was  a pupil 
of  Panetti  and  Costa,  who  made  several  visits  to  Rome  and 
there  fell  in  love  with  Raphael’s  work,  which  showed  in  a 
fondness  for  the  sweep  and  flow  of  line,  in  the  type  of  face 


FIG.  45. — SODOMA.  ECSTASY  OF  ST.  CATHERINE.  SIENNA. 


adopted,  and  in  the  calmness  of  his  many  easel  pictures.  He 
was  not  so  dramatic  a painter  as  Dosso,  and  in  addition  he 
had  certain  mannerisms  or  earmarks,  such  as  sootiness  in 


ITALIAN  PAINTING. 


105 

his  flesh  tints  and  brightness  in  his  yellows  and  greens,  with 
dulness  in  his  reds.  He  was  always  Ferrarese  in  his  land- 
scapes and  in  the  main  characteristics  of  his  technic.  Maz- 
zolino  (1480  P-1528  ?)  was  another  of  the  school,  probably 
a pupil  of  Panetti.  He  was  an  elaborate  painter,  fond  of 
architectural  backgrounds  and  glowing  colors  enlivened  with 
gold  in  the  high  lights.  Bagnacavallo  (1484-1542)  was  a 
pupil  of  Francia  at  Bologna,  but  with  much  of  Dosso  and 
Ferrara  about  him.  He,  in  common  with  Imola,  already 
mentioned,  was  indebted  to  the  art  of  Raphael. 

CORREGGIO  AT  PARMA : In  Correggio  (1494  P-1534)  all  the 
Boccaccio  nature  of  the  Renaissance  came  to  the  surface. 
It  was  indicated  in  Andrea  del  Sarto— this  nature-worship— 
but  Correggio  was  the  consummation.  He  was  the  Faun  of 
the  Renaissance,  the  painter  with  whom  the  beauty  of  the 
human  as  distinguished  from  the  religious  and  the  classic 
showed  at  its  very  strongest.  Free  animal  spirits,  laughing 
madonnas,  raving  nymphs,  excited  children  of  the  wood, 
and  angels  of  the  sky  pass  and  repass  through  his  pictures 
in  an  atmosphere  of  pure  sensuousness.  They  appeal  to  us 
not  religiously,  not  historically,  not  intellectually,  but  sen- 
suously and  artistically  through  their  rhythmic  lines,  their 
palpitating  flesh,!  their  beauty  of  color,  and  in  the  light  and 
atmosphere  that  surround  them.  He  was  less  of  a religion- 
ist than  Andrea  del  Sarto.  Religion  in  art  was  losing 
ground  in  his  day,  and  the  liberality  and  worldliness  of 
its  teachers  appeared  clearly  enough  in  the  decorations  of 
the  Convent  of  St.  Paul  at  Parma,  where  Correggio  was 
allowed  to  paint  mythological  Dianas  and  Cupids  in  the 
place  of  saints  and  madonnas.  True  enough,  he  painted 
the  religious  subject  very  often,  but  with  the  same  spirit 
of  life  and  joyousness  as  profane  subjects. 

The  classic  subject  seemed  more  appropriate  to  his 
spirit,  and  yet  he  knew  and  probably  cared  less  about  it 
than  the  religious  subject.  His  Dianas  and  Ledas  are  only 


106 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


so  in  name.  They  have  little  of  the  Hellenic  spirit  about 
them,  and  for  the  sterner,  heroic  phases  of  classicism — the 
lofty,  the  grand — Correggio  never  essayed  them.  The  things 


FIG.  46. — CORREGGIO.  MARRIAGE  OF  ST.  CATHERINE  AND  CHRIST.  LOUVRE. 

of  this^  earth  and  the  sweetness  thereof  seemed  ever  his 
aim.  Women  and  children  were  beautiful  to  him  in  the 
same  way  that  flowers  and  trees  and  skies  and  sunsets  were 
beautiful.  They  were  revelations  of  grace,  charm,  tender- 
ness, light,  shade,  color.  Simply  to  exist  and  be  glad  in  the 
sunlight  was  sweetness  to  Correggio.  He  would  have  no 
Sibylesque  mystery,  no  prophetic  austerity,  no  solemnity, 
no  great  intellectuality.  He  was  no  leader  of  a tragic 
chorus.  The  dramatic,  the  forceful,  the  powerful,  were 
foreign  to  his  mood.  He  was  a singer  of  lyrics  and 


ITALIAN  PAINTING. 


107 


pastorals,  a lover  of  the  material  beauty  about  him,  and  it 
is  because  he  passed  by  the  pietistic,  the  classic,  the  lit- 
erary, and  showed  the  beauty  of  physical  life  as  an  art 
motive  that  he  is  called  the  Faun  of  the  Renaissance.  The 
appellation  is  not  inappropriate. 

How  or  why  he  came  to  take  this  course  would  be  hard 
to  determine.  It  was  reflective  of  the  times  ; but  Correggio, 
so  far  as  history  tells  us,  had  little  to  do  with  the  move- 
ments and  people  of  his  age.  He  was  born  and  lived  and 
died  near  Parma,  and  is  sometimes  classed  among  the 
Bologna-Ferrara  painters,  but  the  reasons  for  the  classi- 
fication are  not  too  strong.  His  education,  masters,  and 
influences-are --a-1-1— shadowy  and  indefinite.  He  seems,  from 
his  drawing  and  composition,  to  have  known  something  of 
Mantegna  at  Mantua  ; from  his  coloring  something  of  Dosso 
and  Garofolo,  especially  in  his  straw-yellows  ; from  his  early 
types  and  faces  something  of  Costa  and  Francia,  and  his 
contours  and  light-and-shade  indicate  a knowledge  of  Leon- 
ardo’s work.  But  there  is  no  positive  certainty  that  he  saw 
the  work  of  any  of  these  men. 

His  drawing  was  faulty  at  times,  but  not  obtrusively  so  ; 
his  color  and  brush-work  rich,  vivacious,  spirited  ; his  light 
brilliant,  warm,  penetrating  ; his  contours  melting,  grace- 
ful ; his  atmosphere  omnipresent,  enveloping.  In  composi- 
tion he  rather  pushed  aside  line  in  favor  of  light  and  color. 
It  was  his  technical  peculiarity  that  he  centralized  his  light 
and  surrounded  it  by  darks  as  a foil.  And  in  this  very  feat- 
ure he  was  one  of  the  first  men  in  Renaissance  Italy  to  paint 
a picture  for  the  purpose  of  weaving  a scheme  of  lights  and 
darks  through  a tapestry  of  rich  colors.  That  is  art  for 
art’s  sake,  and  that,  as  will  be  seen  further  on,  was  the 
picture  motive  of  the  great  Venetians. 

Correggio’s  immediate  pupils  and  followers,  like  those  of 
Raphael  and  Andrea  del  Sarto,  did  him  small  honor.  As 
was  usually  the  case  in  Renaissance  art-history  they 


IOB  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 

caught  at  the  method  and  lost  the  spirit  of  the  master. 
His  son,  Pomponio  Allegri  (1521-1593  ?),  was  a painter  of 
some  mark  without  being  in  the  front  rank.  Michelangelo 
Anselmi  (1491-1554  ?),  though. not  a pupil,  was  an  indifferent 
imitator  of  Correggio.  Parmigianino  (1504-1540),  a man- 
nered painter  of  some  brilliancy,  and  of  excellence  in 
portraits,  was  perhaps  the  best  of  the  immediate  followers. 
It  was  not  until  after  Correggio’s  death,  and  with  the 
painters  of  the  Decadence,  that  his  work  was  seriously  taken 
up  and  followed. 

PRINCIPAL  WORKS : Milanese — Leonardo  da  Vinci,  Last  Supper  S. 
M.  delle  Grazie  Milan  (in  ruins),  Mona  Lisa,  Madonna  with  St.  Anne 
(badly  damaged)  Louvre,  Adoration  (unfinished)  Uffizi,  Angel  at  left  in 
Verrocchio’s  Baptism  Florence  Acad.;  Luini,  frescos  Monastero  Maggiore, 
71  fragments  in  Brera  Milan,  Church  of  the  Pilgrims  Sarrona,  S.  M.  degli 
Angeli  Lugano,  altar-pieces  Duomo  Como,  Ambrosian  Library  Milan, 
Brera,  Uffizi,  Louvre,  Madrid,  St.  Petersburgh,  and  other  galleries ; 
Beltrafho,  Madonna  Louvre,  Barbara  Berlin  Gal.,  Madonna  Nat.  Gal. 
Lon.,  fresco  Convent  of  S.  Onofrio  Rome  (ascribed  to  Da  Vinci) ; Marco 
da  Oggiono,  Archangels  and  other  works  Brera,  Holy  Family  Madonna 
Louvre  ; Solario,  Ecce  Homo  Repose  Poldi-Pezzoli  Gal.  Milan,  Holy 
Family  Brera,  Madonna  Portrait  Louvre,  Portraits  Nat.  Gal.  Lon., 
Assumption  Certosa  of  Pavia  ; Giampietrino,  Magdalene  Brera,  Ma- 
donna S.  Sepolcro  Milan,  Magdalene  and  Catherine  Berlin  Gal. ; Cesare 
da  Sesto,  Madonna  Brera,  Magi  Naples  Mus.  ; Gaudenzio  Ferrara, 
frescos  Church  of  Pilgrims  Saronna,  other  pictures  in  Brera,  Turin  Gal., 
S.  Gaudenzio  Novara,  S.  Celso  Milan. 

Siennese — Sodoma,  frescos  Convent  of  St.  Anne  near  Pienza, 
Benedictine  Convent  of  Mont’  Oliveto  Maggiore,  Alexander  and  Roxana 
Villa  Farnesina  Rome,  S.  Bernardino  Palazzo  Pubblico,  S.  Domenico 
Sienna,  pictures  Uffizi,  Brera,  Munich,  Vienna  Gals,  ; Pacchiarotto, 
Ascension  Visitation  Sienna  Gal.  ; Girolamo  del  Pacchia,  frescos  (3)  S. 
Bernardino,  altar-pieces  S.  Spirito  and  Sienna  Acad.,  Munich  and  Nat.  Gal. 
Lon.  ; Peruzzi,  fresco  Fontegiuste  Sienna,  S.  Onofrio,  S.  M.  della  Pace 
Rome;  Beccafumi,  St.  Catherine  Saints  Sienna  Acad.,  frescos  S. 
Bernardino  Hospital  and  S.  Martino  Sienna,  Palazzo  Doria  Rome,  Pitti, 
Berlin,  Munich  Gals. 

Ferrarese  and  Bolognese — Dosso  Dossi,  many  works  Ferrara, 


ITALIAN  PAINTING. 


109 

Modena  Gals.,  Duomo  S.  Pietro  Modena,  Brera,  Borghese,  Doria,  Berlin, 
Dresden,  Vienna,  Gals.  ; Garofolo,  many  works  Ferrara  churches  and 
Gal.,  Borghese,  Campigdoglio,  Louvre,  Berlin,  Dresden,  Munich,  Nat. 
Gal.  Lon.  ; Mazzolino,  Ferrara,  Berlin,  Dresden,  Louvre,  Doria, 
Borghese,  Pitti,  Uffizi,  and  Nat.  Gal.  Lon.  ; Bagnacavallo,  Misericordia 
and  Gal.  Bologna,  Louvre,  Berlin,  Dresden  Gals. 

Parmese — Correggio,  frescos  Convent  of  S.  Paolo,  S.  Giovanni 
Evangelista,  Duomo  Parma,  altar-pieces  Dresden  (4),  Parma  Gals., 
Louvre,  mythological  pictures  Antiope  Louvre,  Danae  Borghese,  Leda 
Jupiter  and  Io  Berlin,  Venus  Mercury  and  Cupid  Nat.  Gal.  Lon.,  Gany- 
mede Vienna  Gal.  ; Pomponio  Allegri,  frescos  Capella  del  Popolo 
Parma  ; Anselmi,  frescos  S.  Giovanni  Evangelista,  altar-pieces 
Madonna  della  Steccata,  Duomo,  Gal.  Parma,  Louvre  ; Parmigianino, 
frescos  Moses  Steccata,  S.  Giovanni  Parma,  altar-pieces  Santa  Mar- 
gherita,  Bologna  Gal.,  Madonna  Pitti,  portraits  Uffizi,  Vienna,  Naples 
Mus.,  other  works  Dresden,  Vienna,  and  Nat.  Gal.  Lon. 


CHAPTER  X. 


ITALIAN  PAINTING, 

THE  HIGH  RENAISSANCE.  1500-1600.  ( Continued .) 

Books  Recommended  : The  works  on  Italian  art  before 
mentioned  and  also  consult  General  Bibliography,  (page  xv.) 

THE  VENETIAN  SCHOOL : It  was  at  Venice  and  with  the 
Venetian  painters  of  the  sixteenth  century  that  a new  art- 
motive  was  finally  and  fully  adopted.  This  art-motive  was 
not  religion.  For  though  the  religious  subject  was  still 
largely  used,  the  religious  or  pietistic  belief  was  not  with 
the  Venetians  any  more  than  with  Correggio.  It  was  not 
a classic,  antique,  realistic,  or  naturalistic  motive.  The 
Venetians  were  interested  in  all  phases  of  nature,  and 
they  were  students  of  nature,  but  not  students  of  truth  for 
truth’s  sake. 

What  they  sought,  primarily,  was  the  light  and  shade  on 
a nude  shoulder,  the  delicate  contours  of  a form,  the  flow 
and  fall  of  silk  or  brocade,  the  richness  of  a robe,  a scheme 
of  color  or  of  light,  the  character  of  a face,  the  majesty  of 
a figure.  They  were  seeking  effects  of  line,  light,  color — 
mere  sensuous  and  pictorial  effects,  in  which  religion  and 
classicism  played  secondary  parts.  They  believed  in  art 
for  art’s  sake  ; that  painting  was  a creation,  not  an  illustra- 
tion ; that  it  should  exist  by  its  pictorial  beauties,  not  by  its 
subject  or  story.  No  matter  what  their  subjects,  they 
invariably  painted  them  so  as  to  show  the  beauties  they 
prized  the  highest.  The  Venetian  conception  was  less 


ITALIAN  PAINTING. 


1 1 1 


austere,  grand,  intellectual,  than  pictorial,  sensuous,  con- 
cerning the  beautiful  as  it  appealed  to  the  eye.  And  this 
was  not  a slight  or  unworthy  conception.  True  it  dealt 


with  the  fulness  of  material  life,  but  regarded  as  it  was  by 
the  Venetians — a thing  full-rounded,  complete,  harmonious, 
splendid — it  became  a great  ideal  of  existence. 

In  technical  expression'  color  was  the  note  of  all  the 
school,  with  hardly  an  exception.  This  in  itself  would 
seem  to  imply  a lightness  of  spirit,  for  color  is  somehow 
associated  in  the  popular  mind  with  decorative  gayety;  but 
nothing  could.be  further  removed  from  the  Venetian  school 
than  triviality.  Color  was  taken  up  with  the  greatest 
seriousness,  and  handled  in  such  masses  and  with  such 


FIG.  47.— GIORGIONE  (?).  ORDEAL  OF  MOSES.  UFFIZI. 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


1 12 

dignified  power  that  while  it  pleased  it  also  awed  the  spec- 
tator. Without  having  quite  the  severity  of  line,  some  of 
the  Venetian  chromatic  schemes  rise  in  sublimity  almost  to 
the  Sistine  modellings  of  Michael  Angelo.  We  do  not  feel 
this  so  much  in  Giovanni  Bellini,  fine  in  color  as  he  was. 
He  came  too  early  for  the  full  splendor,  but  he  left  many 
pupils  who  completed  what  he  had  inaugurated. 

THE  GREAT  VENETIANS : The  most  positive  in  influence 
upon  his  contemporaries  of  all  the  great  Venetians  was 
Giorgione  (1477  ?-i5ii).  He  died- young,  and  what  few 
pictures  by  him  are  left  to  us  have  been  so  torn  to  pieces 
by  historical  criticism  that  at  times  one  begins  to  doubt  if 
there  ever  was  such  a painter.  His  different  styles  have 
been  confused,  and  his  pictures  in  consequence  thereof 
attributed  to  followers  instead  of  to  the  master.  Painters 
change  their  styles,  but  seldom  their  original  bent  of  mind. 
With  Giorgione  there  was  a lyric  feeling  as  shown  in 
music.  The  voluptuous  swell  of  line,  the  melting  tone  of 
color,  the  sharp  dash  of  light,  the  undercurrent  of  atmos- 
phere, all  mingled  for  him  into  radiant  melody.  He 
sought  pure  pictorial  beauty  and  found  it  in  everything 
of  nature.  He  had  little'  grasp  of  the  purely  intellectual, 
and  the  religious  was  something  he  dealt  with  in  no  strong 
devotional  way.  The  fete,  the  concert,  the  fable,  the 
legend,  with  a landscape  setting,  made  a stronger  appeal  to 
him.  More  of  a recorder  than  a thinker  he  was  not  the  less 
a leader  showing  the  way  into  that  new  Arcadian  grove 
of  pleasure  whose  inhabitants  thought  not  of  creeds  and 
faiths  and  histories  and  literatures,  but  were  content  to 
lead  the  life  that  was  sweet  in  its  glow  and  warmth  of  color, 
its  light,  its  shadows,  its  bending  trees,  and  arching  skies. 
A strong  full-blooded  race,  sober-minded,  dignified,  ration- 
ally happy  with  their  lot,  Giorgione  portrayed  them  with  an 
art  infinite  in  variety  and  consummate  in  skill.  Their  least 
features  under  his  brush  seemed  to  glow  like  jewels.  The 


ITALIAN  PAINTING. 


by  Antonello  da  Messina,  introducing  scumbling  and  glaz- 
ing to  obtain  brilliancy  and  depth  of  color.  Of  light-and- 
shade  he  was  a master,  and  in  atmosphere  excellent.  He, 
in  common  with  all  the  Venetians,  is  sometimes  said  to  be 
lacking  in  drawing,  but  that  is  the  result  of  a misunder- 
standing. The  Venetians  never  cared  to  accent  line,  choos- 
ing rather  to  model  in  masses  of  light  and  shadow  and 
color.  Giorgione  was  a superior  man  with  the  brush,  but 
not  quite  up  to  his  contemporary  Titian. 

That  is  not  surprising,  for  Titian  (1477-1576)  was  the 
8 


1 13 

sheen  of  armor  and  rich  robe,  a bare  forearm,  a hude 
back,  or  loosened  hair — mere  morsels  of  color  and  light — 
all  took  on  a new  beauty.  Even  landscape  with  him  became 
more  significant.  His  master,  Bellini,  had  been  realistic 
enough  in  the  details  of  trees  and  hills,  but  Giorgione 
grasped  the  meaning  of  landscape  as  an  entirety,. and  ren- 
dered it  with  poetic  breadth. 

Technically  he  adopted  the  oil  medium  brought  to  Venice 


FIG.  48. — TITIAN.  VENUS  EQUIPPING  CUPID.  BORGHESE  PAL.,  ROME. 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


114 

painter  easily  first  in  the  whole  range  of  Italian  art.  He 
was  the  first  man  in  the  history  of  painting  to  handle  a brush 
with  freedom,  vigor, _and__^usto.  And  Titian’s  brush-work 
was  probably  the  least  part  of.  his  genius.  Calm  in  mood, 
dignified,  and  often  majestic  in  conception,  learned  beyond 
all  others  in  his  craft,  he  mingled  thought,  feeling,  color, 
brush-work  into  one  grand  and  glowing  whole.  He  em- 
phasized nothing,  yet  elevated  everything.  In  pure  intel- 
lectual thought  he  was  not  so  strong  as  Raphael.  He  never 
sought  to  make  painting  a vehicle  for  theological,  literary, 
or  classical  ideas.  His  tale  was  largely  of  humanity  under 
a religious  or  classical  name,  but  a noble,  majestic  humanity. 
In  his  art  dignified  senators,  stern  doges,  and  solemn  eccle- 
siastics mingle  with  open-eyed  madonnas,  winning  Ariadnes, 
and  youthful  Bacchuses.  Men  and  women  they  are  truly, 
but  the  very  noblest  of  the  Italian  race,  the  mountain  race 
of  the  Cadore  country — proud,  active,  glowing  with  life  ; the 
sea  race  of  Venice — worldly  wise,  full  of  character,  luxurious 
in  power. 

In  himself  he  was  an  epitome  of  all  the  excellences  of 
painting.  He  was  everything,  the  sum  of  Venetian  skill, 
the  crowning  genius  of  Renaissance  art.  He  had  force, 
power,  invention,  imagination,  point  of  view  ; he  had  the 
infinite  knowledge  of  nature  and  the  infinite  mastery  of  art. 
In  addition,  Fortune  smiled  upon  him  as  upon  a favorite 
child.  Trained  in  mind  and  hand  he  lived  for  ninety-nine 
years  and  worked  unceasingly  up  to  a few  months  of  his 
death.  His  genius  was  great  and  his  accomplishment 
equally  so.  He  was  celebrated  and  independent  at  thirty- 
five,  though  before  that  he  showed  something  of  the  influ- 
ence of  Giorgione.  After  the  death  of  Giorgione  and  his 
master,  Bellini,  Titian  was  the  leader  in  Venice  to  the  end 
of  his  long  life,  and  though  having  few  scholars  of  impor- 
tance his  influence  was  spread  through  all  North  Italian 
painting. 


and  repose  of  one  who  overlooked  the  world  from  a lofty 
height. 

The  restfulness  and  easy  strength  of  Titian  were  not 
characteristics  of  his  follower  Tintoretto  (1518-1592).  He 


ITALIAN  PAINTING.  1 1 5 

Taking  him  for  all  in  all,  perhaps  it  is  not  too  much  to  say 
that  he  was  the  greatest  painter  known  to  history.  If  it 
were  possible  to  describe  that  greatness  in  one  word,  that 
word  would  be  “ universality.”  He' saw  and  painted  that 
which  was  universal  in  its  truth.  The  local  and  particular, 
the  small  and  the  accidental,  were  passed  over  for  those 
great  truths  which  belong  to  all  the  world  of  life.  In  this 
respect  he  was  a veritable  Shakespeare,  with  all  the  calmness 


FIG.  49. — TINTORETTO.  MERCURY  AND  GRACES.  DUCAL  PAL.,  VENICE. 


1 16 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


was  violent,  headlong,  impulsive,  more  impetuous  than 
Michael  Angelo,  and  in  some  respects  a strong  reminder  of 
him.  He  had  not  Michael  Angelo’s  austerity,  and  there 
was  more  clash  and  tumult  and  lire  about  him,  but  he  had 
a command  of  line  like  the  Florentine,  and  a way  of  hurling 
things,  as  seen  in  the  Fall  of  the  Damned,  that  reminds 
one  of  the  Last  Judgment  of  the  Sistine.  It  was  his  aim  to 
combine  the  line  of  Michael  Angelo  and  the  color, of  Titian  ; 
but  without  reaching  up  to  either  of  his  models  he  pro- 
duced a powerful  amalgam  of  his  own. 

He  was  one  of  the  very  great  artists  of  the  world,  and 
the  most  rapid  workman  in  the  whole  Renaissance  period. 
There  are  to-day,  after  centuries  of  decay,  lire,  theft,  and 
repainting,  yards  upon  yards  of  Tintoretto’s  canvases  rot- 
ting upon  the  walls  of  the  Venetian  churches.  He  pro- 
duced an  enormous  amount  of  work,  and,  what  is  to  be 
regretted,  much  of  it  was  contract  work  or  experimental 
sketching.  This  has  given  his  art  a rather  bad  name,  but 
judged  by  his  best  works  in  the  Ducal  Palace  and  the 
Academy  at  Venice,  he  will  not  be  found  lacking.  Even 
in  his  masterpiece  (The  Miracle  of  the  Slave)  he  is  “II 
Furioso,”  as  they  used  to  call  him  ; but  his  thunderbolt 
style  is  held  in  check  by  wonderful  grace,  strength  of 
modelling,  superb  contrasts  of  light  with  shade,  and  a 
coloring  of  flesh  and  robes  not  unworthy  of  the  very 
greatest.  He  was  a man  who  worked  in  the  white  heat  of 
passion,  with  much  imagination  and  invention.  As  a tech- 
nician he  sought  difficulties  rather  than  avoided  them. 
There  is  some  antagonism  between  form  and  color,  but 
Tintoretto  tried  to  reconcile  them.  The  result  was  some- 
times clashing,  but  no  one  could  have  done  better  with 
them  than  he  did.  He  was  a line  draughtsman,  a good 
colorist,  and  a master  of  light.  As  a brushman  he  was  a 
superior  man,  but  not  equal  to  Titian. 

Paolo  Veronese  (1528-1588),  the  fourth  great  Venetian, 


ITALIAN  PAINTING. 


II 7 


did  not  follow  the  line  direction  set  by  Tintoretto,  but  car- 
ried out  the  original  color-leaning  of  the  school.  He  came 
a little  later  than  Tintoretto,  and  his  art  was  a reflection  of 
the  advancing  Re- 
naissance, wherein 
simplicity  was  des- 
tined to  lose  itself 
in  complexity, 
grandeur,  and  dis- 
play. Paolo  came 
on  the  very  crest 
of  the  Renaissance 
wave,  when  art, 
risen  to  its  great- 
est height,  was 
gleaming  in  that 
transparent  splen- 
dor that  precedes 
thejfalL 

The  great  bulk 
of  his  work  had  a 
large  decorative 
motive  behind  it. 

» i , n r . i FIG.  50. — P.  VERONESE.  VENICE  ENTHRONED.  DUCAL 

Almost  all  of  the  pal'.,  Venice. 

late  Venetian  work 

was  of  that  character.  Hence  it  was  brilliant  in  color,  elab- 
orate in  subject,  and  grand  in  scale.  Splendid  robes,  hang- 
ings, furhiture7architecture,  jewels,  armor,  appeared  every- 
where, ancf  not  in  flat,  lustreless  hues,  but  with  that  brill- 
iancy which  they  possess  in  nature.  Drapery  gave  way  to 
clothing,  and  texture-painting  was  introduced  even  in  the 
largest  canvases.  Scenes  from  Scripture  and  legend  turned 
into  grand  pageants  of  Venetian  glory,  and  the  facial  ex- 
pression of  the  characters  rather  passed  out  in  favor  of 
telling  masses  of  color  to  be  seen  at  a distance  upon  wall 


1 1 8 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


or  ceiling.  It  was  pomp  and  glory  carried  to  the  highest 
pitch,  but  with  all  seriousness  of  mood  and  truthfulness  in 
art.  It  was  beyond  Titian  in  variety,  richness,  ornament, 
facility;  but  it  was  perhaps  below  Titian  in  sentiment, 
sobriety,  and  depth  of  insight.  Titian,  with  all  his  sen- 
suous beauty,  did  appeal  to  the  higher  intelligence,  while 
Paolo  and  his  companions  appealed  more  positively  to  the 
eye  by  luxurious  color-setting  and  magnificence  of  inven- 
tion. The  decadence  came  after  Paolo,  but  not  with  him. 
His  art  was  the  most  gorgeous  of  the  Venetian  school,  and 
by  many  is  ranked  the  highest  of  all,  but  perhaps  it  is 
better  to  say  it  was  the  height.  Those  who  came  after 
brought  about  the  decline  by  striving  to  imitate  his  splen- 
1 r,  and  thereby  falling  into  extravagance. 


These  are  the  four  great  Venetians — the  men  of  first  rank. 
Beside  them  and  around  them  were  many  other  painters, 
placed  in  the  second  rank,  who  in  any  other  time  or  city 
would  have  held  first  place.  Palma  il  Vecchio  (i48o?-i528) 
was  so  excellent  in  many  ways  that  it  seems  unjust  to  speak 
of  him  as  a secondary  painter.  He  was  not,  however,  a great 
original  mind,  though  in  many  respects  a perfect  painter. 
He  was  influenced  by  Bellini  at  first,  and  then  by  Giorgione. 
In  subject  there  was  nothing  dramatic  about  him,  and  he 
carries  chiefly  by  his  portrayal  of  quiet,  dignified,  and  beau- 
tiful Venetians  under  the  names  of  saints  and  holy  families. 
The  St.  Barbara  is  an  example  of  this,  and  one  of  the  most 
majestic  figures  in  all  painting. 

Palma’s  friend  and  fellow-worker,  Lorenzo  Lotto  (1480?- 
1 5 5 6 ?)  came  from  the  school  of  the  Bellini,  and  at  different 
times  was  under  the  influence  of  several  Venetian  painters — 
Palma,  Giorgione,  Titian — without  obliterating  a sensitive 
individuality  of  his  own.  He  was  a somewhat  mannered 
but  very  charming  painter,  and  in  portraits  can  hardly  be 
classed  below  Titian.  Rocco  Marconi  (fl.  1505-1520)  was 
another  Bellini-educated  painter,  showing  the  influence  of 


ITALIAN  PAINTING. 


119 

Palma  and  even  of  Paris  Bordone.  In  color  and  land- 
scape he  was  excellent.  Pordenone  (1483-1540)  rather  fol- 
lowed after  Giorgione,  and  unsuccessfully  competed  with 
Titian.  He  was  inclined  to  exaggeration  in  dramatic  com- 
position, but  was  a painter  of  undeniable  power.  Bonifazio 
Veronese  (?-i54o),  Bonifazio  II.  (?— 1 553),  and  Bonifazio  III. 
(?-i57o),  came  from  a Veronese  family  and  were  closely  re- 


FIG.  51. — LOTTO.  THREE  AGES.  PITTI. 


lated.  Their  styles  are  difficult  to  distinguish  apart.  The 
elder  showed  the  influence  of  Palma,  and  all  of  them  were 
rather  deficient  in  drawing,  though  exceedingly  brilliant 
and  rich  in  coloring.  This  latter  may  be  said  for  Paris 
Bordone  (1495-1570),  a painter  of  Titian’s  school,  gorgeous 
in  color,  but  often  lacking  in  truth  of  form.  His  portraits 
are  very  fine.  Another  painter  family,  the  Bassani — there 
were  six  of  them,  of  whom  Jacopo  Bassano  (15 10-1592) 


120 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


and  his  son  Francesco  Bassano  (1550-1591),  were  the  most 
noted — formed  themselves  after  Venetian  masters,  and  were 
rather  remarkable  for  violent  contrasts  of  light  and  dark, 
genre  treatment  of  sacred  subjects,  and  still-life  and  animal 
painting. 

PAINTING  IN  VENETIAN  TERRITORIES : Venetian  painting  was 
not  confined  to  Venice,  but  extended  through  all  the  Vene- 
tian territories  in  Renaissance  times,  and  those  who  lived 
away  from  the  city  were,  in  their  art,  decidedly  Venetian, 
though  possessing  local  characteristics. 

At  Brescia  Savoldo  (1480  ?-i548),  a rather  superficial 
painter,  fond  of  weird  lights  and  sheeny  draperies,  and  Ro- 
manino  (1485  ?— 1 566),  a follower  of  Giorgione,  good  in  com- 
position but  unequal  and  careless  in  execution,  were  the 
earliest  of  the  High  Renaissance  men.  Moretto  (1498  ?- 
1555)  was  the  strongest  and  most  original,  a man  of  individ- 
uality and  power,  remarkable  technically  for  his  delicacy 
and  unity  of  color  under  a veil  of  “silvery  tone.”  In  com- 
position he  was  dignified  and  noble,  and  in  brush-work  sim- 
ple and  direct.  One  of  the  great  painters  of  the  time, 
he  seemed  to  stand  more  apart  from  Venetian  influence 
than  any  other  on  Venetian  territory.  He  left  one  remark- 
able pupil,  Moroni  (fl.  1549-1578)  whose  portraits  are  to-day 
the  gems  of  several  galleries,  and  greatly  admired  for  their 
modern  spirit  and  treatment. 

At  Verona  Caroto  and  Girolamo  dai  Libri  (1474-1555), 
though  living  into  the  sixteenth  century  were  more  allied 
to  the  art  of  the  fifteenth  century.  Torbido  (i486?-i546  ?) 
was  a vacillating  painter,  influenced  by  Liberale  da  Verona, 
Giorgione,  Bonifazio  Veronese,  and  later,  even  by  Giulio 
Romano.  Cavazzola  (1486-1522)  was  more  original,  and  a 
man  of  talent.  There  were  numbers  of  other  painters 
scattered  all  through  the  Venetian  provinces  at  this  time, 
but  they  were  not  of  the  first,  or  even  the  second  rank,  and 
hence  call  for  no  mention  here. 


ITALIAN  PAINTING. 


I 2 1 


PRINCIPAL  WORKS : Giorgione,  Fete  Rustique  Louvre,  Sleeping 
Venus  Dresden,  altar-piece  Castelfranco,  Ordeal  of  Moses  Judgment 
of  Solomon  Knight  of  Malta  Uffizi ; Titian,  Sacred  and  Profane  Love 
Borghese,  Tribute  Money  Dresden,  Annunciation  S.  Rocco,  Pesaro  Ma- 
donna Frari  Venice,  Entombment  Man  with  Glove  Louvre,  Bacchus 
Nat.  Gal.  Lon.,  Charles  V.  Madrid,  Danse  Naples,  many  other  works 
in  almost  every  European  gallery  ; Tintoretto,  many  works  in  Venetian 
churches,  Salute  SS.  Giovanni  e Paolo  S.  Maria  dell’  Orto  Scuola  and 
Church  of  S.  Rocco  Ducal  Palace  Venice  Acad,  (best  work  Miracle 
of  Slave)  ; Paola  Veronese,  many  Pictures  in  S.  Sebastiano  Ducal  Pal- 
ace Academy  Venice,  Pitti,  Uffizi,  Brera,  Capitoline  and  Borghese  Gal- 
leries Rome,  Turin,  Dresden,  Vienna,  Louvre,  Nat.  Gal.  Lon.;  Palma 
il  Vecchio,  Jacob  and  Rachel  Three  Sisters  Dresden,  Barbara  S.  M. 
Formosa  Venice,  other  altar-pieces  Venice  Acad.,  Colonna  Palace 
Rome,  Brera,  Naples  Mus. , Vienna,  Nat.  Gal.  Lon.;  Lotto,  Three  Ages 
Pitti,  Portraits  Brera,  Nat.  Gal.  Lon.,  altar-pieces  SS.  Giovanni  e Pa- 
olo Venice  and  churches  at  Bergamo,  Treviso,  Recanti,  also  Uffizi, 
Vienna,  Madrid  Gals.;  Marconi,  Descent  Venice  Acad.,  altar-pieces 
S.  Giorgio  Maggiore  SS.  Giovanni  e Paolo  Venice  ; Pordenone,  S. 
Lorenzo  Madonna  Venice  Acad.,  Salome  Doria  St.  George  Quirinale 
Rome,  other  works  Madrid,  Dresden,  St.  Petersburg,  Nat.  Gal.  Lon.; 
Bonifazio  Veronese,  St.  John  St.  Joseph  etc.  Ambrosian  Library 
Milan  (attributed  to  Giorgione),  Holy  Family  Colonna  Pal.  Rome,  Ducal 
Pal.,  Pitti,  Dresden  Gals.;  Bonifazio  II.,  Supper  at  Emmaus  Brera,  other 
works  Venice  Acad.,  Pitti,  Borghese,  Dresden  ; Bonifazio  III.,  altar- 
pieces  Venice  Acad.  (Follow  Morelli  for  attributions  in  case  of  the  Boni- 
fazio s)  ; Paris  Bordone,  Fisherman  and  Doge,  Venice  Acad.,  Madonna 
Casa  Tadini  Lovere,  portraits  in  Uffizi,  Pitti,  Louvre,  Munich,  Vienna, 
Nat.  Gal.  Lon.,  Brignola  Pal.  Genoa  ; Jacopo  Bassano,  altar-pieces  in 
Bassano  churches,  also  Ducal  Pal.  Venice,  Nat.  Gal.  Lon.,  Uffizi,  Naples 
Mus.;  Francesco  Bassano,  large  pictures  Ducal  Pal.,  St.  Catherine 
Pitti,  Sabines  Turin,  Adoration  and  Christ  in  Temple  Dresden,  Adora- 
tion and  Last  Supper  Madrid  ; Savoldo,  altar-pieces  Brera,  S.  Nic- 
colo  Treviso,  Uffizi,  Turin  Gal.,  S.  Giobbe  Venice,  Nat.  Gal.  Lon.; 
Romanino,  altar-pieces  S.  Francesco  Brescia,  Berlin  Gal.,  S.  Giovanni 
Evangelista  Brescia,  Duomo  Cremona,  Padua,  and  Nat.  Gal.  Lon.;  Mo- 
retto,  altar-pieces  Brera,  Staedel  .Mus.,  S.  M.  della  Pieta  Venice, 
Vienna,  Berlin,  Louvre,  Pitti,  Nat.  Gal.  Lon.;  Moroni,  portraits  Bergamo 
Gal.,  Uffizi,  Nat.  Gal.  Lon.,  Berlin,  Dresden,  Madrid  ; Girolamo  dai 
Libri,  Madonna  Berlin,  Conception  S.  Paolo  Verona,  Virgin  Verona 
Gal.,  S.  Giorgio  Maggiore  Verona,  Nat.  Gal.  Lon.;  Torbido,  frescos 
Duomo,  altar-pieces  S.  Zeno  and  S.  Eufemia  Verona;  Cavazzola, 
altar-pieces,  Verona  Gal.  and  Nat.  Gal.  Lon. 


CHAPTER  XI. 


ITALIAN  PAINTING. 

THE  DECADENCE  AND  MODERN  WORK.  1600-1894. 

Books  Recommended  : As  before,  also  General  Bibliog- 
raphy, (page  xv.)  ; Calvi,  Notizie  della  vita  e delle  opere  di  Gio. 
Francesco  Barbiera  j Malvasia,  Felsina  Fittrice  ; Sir  Joshua 
Reynolds,  Discourses ; Symonds,  Renaissance  in  Italy  — The 
Catholic  Reaction  ; Willard,  Modern  Italian  Art. 

THE  DECLINE:  An  art  movement  in  history  seems  like  a 
wave  that  rises  to  a height,  then  breaks,  falls,  and  parts  of 
it  are  caught  up  from  beneath  to  help  form  the  strength  of 
a new  advance.  In  Italy  Christianity  was  the  propelling 
force  of  the  wave.  In  the  Early  Renaissance,  the  antique, 
and  the  study  of  nature  came  in  as  additions.  At  Venice 
in  the  High  Renaissance  the  art  - for  - art’s  - sake  motive 
made  the  crest  of  light  and  color.  The  highest  point  was 
reached  then,  and  there  was  nothing  that  could  follow  but 
the  breaking  and  the  scattering  of  the  wave.  This  took 
place  in  Central  Italy  after  1540,  in  Venice  after  1590. 

Art  had  typified  in  form,  thought,  and  expression  every- 
thing of  which  the  Italian  race  was  capable.  It  had  per- 
fected all  the  graces  and  elegancies  of  line  and  color,  and 
adorned  them  with  a superlative  splendor.  There  was  noth- 
ing more  to  do.  The  idea  was  completed,  the  motive  power 
had  served  its  purpose,  and  that  store  of  race-impulse  which 
seems  necessary  to  the  making  of  every  great  art  was  ex- 
hausted. For  the  men  that  came  after  Michael  Angelo  and 


ITALIAN  PAINTING. 


123 


Tintoretto  there  was  nothing.  All  that  they  could  do  was 
to  repeat  what  others  had  said,  or  to  recombine  the  old 
thoughts  and  forms. 

This  led  inevitably  to 
i m i t a t i on,  over-refine- 
ment of  style,  and  con- 
scious study  of  beauty, 
resulting  in  mannerism 
and  affectation.  Such 
qualities  marked  the  art 
of  those  painters  who 
came  in  the  latter  part 
of  the  sixteenth  century 
and  the  first  of  the  sev- 
enteenth. They  were 
unfortunate  men  in  the 
time  of  their  birth.  No 
painter  could  have  been 
great  in  the  seventeenth 
century  of  Italy.  Art 
lay  prone  upon  its  face 
under  Jesuit  rule,  and 
the  late  men  were  left 
upon  the  barren  sands  by  the  receding  wave  of  the  Re- 
naissance. 

ART  MOTIVES  AND  SUBJECTS : As  before,  the  chief  subject 
of  the  art  of  the  Decadence  was  religion,  with  many  heads 
and  busts  of  the  Madonna,  though  nature  and  the  classic 
still  played  their  parts.  After  the  Reformation  at  the 
North  the  Church  in  Italy  started  the  Counter-Reforma- 
tion. One  of  the  chief  means  employed  by  this  Catholic 
reaction  was  the  embellishment  of  church  worship,  and 
painting  on  a large  scale,  on  panel  rather  than  in  fresco,  was 
demanded  for  decorative  purposes.  But  the  religious  mo- 
tive had  passed  out,  though  its  subject  was  retained,  and 


FIG.  52.— BRONZINO.  CHRIST  IN  LIMBO.  UFFIZI. 


124 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


the  pictorial  motive  had  reached  its  climax  at  Venice.  The 
faith  of  the  one  and  the  taste  and  skill  of  the  other  were  not 
attainable  by  the  late  men,  and,  while  consciously  striving 
to  achieve  them,  they  fell,  into  exaggerated  sentiment  and 
technical  weakness.  It  seems  perfectly  apparent  in  their 
works  that  they  had  nothing  of  their  own  to  say,  and  that 
they  were  trying  to  say  over  again  what  Michael  Angelo, 
Correggio,  and  Titian  had  said  before  them  much  better. 
There  were  earnest  men  and  good  painters  among  them, 
but  they  could  produce  only  the  empty  form  of  art.  The 
spirit  had  fled. 

THE  MANNERISTS : Immediately  after  the  High  Renais- 
sance leaders  of  Florence  and  Rome  came  the  imitators  and 
exaggerators  of  their  styles.  They  produced  large,  crowded 
compositions,  with  a hasty  facility  of  the  brush  and  striking 
effects  of  light.  Seeking  the  grand  they  overshot  the  tem- 
perate. Their  elegance  was  affected,  their  sentiment  forced, 
their  brilliancy  superficial  glitter.  When  they  thought  to  be 
ideal  they  lost  themselves  in  incomprehensible  allegories  ; 
when  they  thought  to  be  real  they  grew  prosaic  in  detail. 
These  men  are  known  in  art  history  as  the  Mannerists,  and 
the  men  whose  works  they  imitated  were  chiefly  Raphael, 
Michael  Angelo,  and  Correggio.  There  were  many  of  them, 
and  some  of  them  have  already  been  spoken  of  as  the  fol- 
lowers of  Michael  Angelo. 

Agnolo  Bronzino  (1502  ?-i572)  was  a pupil  of  Pontormo, 
and  an  imitator  of  Michael  Angelo,  painting  in  rather  heavy 
colors  with  a thin  brush.  His  characters  were  large,  but 
never  quite  free  from  weakness,  except  in  portraiture,  where 
he  appeared  at  his  best.  Vasari  (1511-1574)  — the  same 
Vasari  who  wrote  the  lives  of  the  painters — had  versatility 
and  facility,  but  his  superficial  imitations  of  Michael 
Angelo  were  too  grandiose  in  conception  and  too  palpably 
false  in  modelling.  Salviati  (1510-1563)  was  a friend  of 
Vasari,  a painter  of  about  the  same  cast  of  mind  and 


ITALIAN  PAINTING. 


12$ 


hand  as  Vasari,  and  Federigo  Zucchero  (1543-1609)  belongs 
with  him  in  producing  things  muscularly  big  but  intellectu- 
ally small.  Baroccio  (1528-1  6 1 2),  though  classed  among 
the  Mannerists  as  an  imitator  of  Correggio  and  Raphael,  was 
really  one  of  the  strong  men  of  the  late  times.  There  was 
affectation  and  sentimentality  about  his  work,  a prettiness 
of  face,  rosy  flesh  tints,  and  a general  lightness  of  color, 
but  he  was  a superior  brushman,  a good  colorist,  and,  at 
times,  a man  of  earnestness  and  power. 

THE  ECLECTICS:  After  the  Mannerists  came  the  Eclectics 
of  Bologna,  led  by 
the  Caracci,  who, 
aboutt‘585,  sought  to 
“ revive  ” art.  They 
started  out  to  correct 
the  faults  of  the  Man- 
nerists, and  yet  their 
own  art  was  based 
more  on  the  art  of 
their  great  predeces- 
sors than  on  nature. 

They  thought  to 
make  a union  of  Re- 
naissance excellences 
by  combining  Mi- 
chael Angelo’s  line, 

Titian’s  color,  Cor- 
reggio’s light  - and  - 
shade  and  Raphael’s 
symmetry  and  grace. 

The  attempt  was 
praiseworthy  for  the 

time,  but  hardly  successful.  They  caught  the  lines  and 
lights  and  colors  of  the  great  men,  but  they  overlooked 
the  fact  that  the  excellence  of  the  imitated  lay  largely  in 


FIG.  53. — BAROCCIO.  ANNUNCIATION. 


126 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


their  inimitable  individualities,  which  could  not  be  com- 
bined. The  Eclectic  work  was  done  with  intelligence,  but 
their  system  was  against  them  and  their  baroque  age  was 
against  them.  Midway  in  their  career  the  Caracci  them- 
selves modified  their  eclecticism  and  placed  more  reliance 
upon  nature.  But  their  pupils  paid  little  heed  to  the  modi- 
fication. 

There  were  five  of  the  Caracci,  but  three  of  them — 
Ludovico  (1555-1619),  Agostino  (1557-1602),  and  Annibale 
(1560-1609) — led  the  school,  and  of  these  Annibale  was  the 
most  distinguished.  They  had  many  pupils,  and  xtheir 
influence  was  widely  spread  over  Italy.  In  Sir  Joshua 
Reynolds’s  day  they  were  ranked  with  Raphael,  but  at  the 
present  time  criticism  places  them  where  they  belong — 
painters  of  the  Decadence  with  little  originality  or  spon- 
taneity in  their  art,  though  much  technical  skill.  Domeni- 
chino  (1581-1641)  was  the  strongest  of  the  pupils.  His 
St.  Jerome  was  rated  by  Poussin  as  one  of  the  three  great 
paintings  of  the  world,  but  it  never  deserved  such  rank. 
It  is  powerfully  composed,  but  poor  in  coloring  and  hand- 
ling. The  painter  had  great  repute  in  his  time,  and  was  one 
of  the  best  of  the  seventeenth  century  men.  Guido  Reni 
(l  575-1642)  was  a painter  of  many  gifts  and  accomplish- 
ments, combined  with  many  weaknesses.  His  works  are 
well  composed  and  painted,  but  excessive  in  sentiment  and 
overdone  in  pathos.  Albani  (1578-1660)  ran  to  elegance 
and  a porcelain-like  prettiness.  Guercino  (1591-1666)  was 
originally  of  the  Eclectic  School  at  Bologna,  but  later  took 
up  with  the  methods  of  the  Naturalists  at  Naples.  He  was 
a painter  of  far  more  than  the  average  ability.  Sassoferrato 
(1605-1685)  and  Carlo  Dolci  (1616-1686)  were  so  super- 
saturated with  sentimentality  that  often  their  skill  as 
painters  is  overlooked  or  forgotten.  In  spirit  they  were 
about  the  weakest  of  the  century.  There  were  other  eclec- 
tic schools  started  throughout  Italy — at  Milan,  Cremona, 


ITALIAN  PAINTING. 


127 


THE  NATURALISTS:  Contemporary  with  the  Eclectics 
sprang  up  the  Neapolitan  school  of  the_ Naturalists,,  led  by 
Caravaggio  (1569-1609)  and  his  pupils.  These  schools 
opposed  each  other,  and  yet  influenced  each  other.  Espe- 
cially was  this  true  with  the  later  men,  who  took  what  was 
best  in  both  schools.  The  Naturalists  were,  perhaps,  more 
firmly  based  upon  nature  than  the  Bolognese  Eclectics. 


Ferrara  — but  they  produced  little  worth  recording.  At 
Rome  certain  painters  like  Cristofano  Allori  (1577-1621),  an 
exceptionally  strong  man  for  the  time,  Berrettini  (1596- 
1669),  and  Maratta  (1625-1713),  manufactured  a facile  kind 
of  painting  from  what  was  attractive  in  the  various  schools, 
but  it  was  never  other  than  meretricious  work. 


FIG.  54. — ANNIBALE  CARACCI.  ENTOMBMENT  OF  CHRIST.  LOUVRE. 


128 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


Their  aim  was  to  take  nature  as  they  found  it,  and  yet, 
in  conformity  with  the  extravagance  of  the  age,  they 
depicted  extravagant  nature.  Caravaggio  thought  to 
represent  sacred  scenes  more  truthfully  by  taking  his 
models  from  the  harsh  street  life  about  him  and  giving 
types  of  saints  and  apostles  from  Neapolitan  brawlers  and 
bandits.  It  was  a brutal,  coarse  representation,  rather 
fierce  in  mood  and  impetuous  in  action,  yet  not  without 
a good  deal  of  tragic  power.  His  subjects  were  rather 
dismal  or  morose,  but  there  was  knowledge  in  the  drawing 
of  them,  some  good  color  and  brush-work  and  a peculiar 
darkness  of  shadow  masses  . (originally  gained  from 
Giorgione),  that  stood  as  an  ear-mark  of  his  whole  school. 
From  the  continuous  use  of  black  shadows  the  school  got 
the  name  of  the  “Darklings,”  by  which  they  are  still  known. 
Giordano  (1632-1 705),  a painter  of  prodigious  facility  and 
invention,  Salvator  Rosa  (1 61 5-1673),  best  known  as  one  of 
the  early  painters  of  landscape,  and  Ribera,  a Spanish 
painter,  were  the  principal  pupils. 

THE  LATE  VENETIANS:  The  Decadence  at  Venice,  like 
the  Renaissance,  came  later  than  at  Florence,  but  after 
the  death  of  Tintoretto  mannerisms  and  the  imitation 
of  the  great  men  did  away  with  originality.  There 
was  still  much  color  left,  and  fine  ceiling  decorations 
were  done,  but  the  nobility  and  calm  splendor  of  Titian’s 
days  had  passed.  Palma  il  Giovine  (1544-1628)  with  a 
hasty  brush  produced  imitations  of  Tintoretto  with  some 
grace  and  force,  and  in  remarkable  quantity.  He  and 
Tintoretto  were  the  most  rapid  and  productive  painters  of 
the  century  ; but  Palma’s  was  not  good  in  spirit,  though 
quite  dashing  in  technic.  Padovanino  (1590-1650)  was 
more  of  a Titian  follower,  but,  like  all  the  other  painters  of 
the  time,  he  was  proficient  with  the  brush  and  lacking  in 
the  stronger  mental  elements.  The  last  great  Italian 
painter  was  Tiepolo  (1696-1770),  and  he  was  really  great 


ITALIAN  PAINTING. 


129 


beyond  his  age.  With  an  art  founded  on  Paolo  Veronese, 
he  produced  decorative  ceilings  and  panels  of  high  quality, 
with  wonderful  invention,  a limpid  brush,  and  a light  flaky 


FIG.  55. — CARAVAGGIO.  THE  CARD  PLAYERS.  DRESDEN. 

color  peculiarly  appropriate  to  the  walls  of  churches  and 
palaces.  He  was,  especially  in  easel  pictures,  a brilliant, 
vivacious  brushman,  full  of  dash  and  spirit,  tempered  by 
a large  knowledge  of  what  was  true  and  pictorial.  Some  of 
his  best  pictures  are  still  in  Venice,  and  modern  painters  are 
unstinted  in  their  praise  of  them.  He  left  a son,  Domenico 
Tiepolo  (1726-1795),  who  followed  his  methods.  In  the  late 
days  of  Venetian  painting,  Canaletto  (1697-1768)  and  Guardi 
(1712-1793)  achieved  reputation  by  painting  Venetian 
canals  and  architecture  with  much  color  effect. 

NINETEENTH-CENTTJRY  PAINTING  IN  ITALY : There  is  little 
in  the  art  of  Italy  during  the  present  century  that  shows 
a positive  national  spirit.  It  has  been  leaning  on  the  rest 
of  Europe  for  many  years,  and  the  best  that  the  living 
9 


i3o 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


painters  show  is  largely  an  echo  of  Dusseldorf,  Munich,  or 
Paris.  The  revived  classicism  of  David  in  France  affected 
nineteenth-century  painting  in  Italy  somewhat.  Then  it 
was  swayed  by  Cornelius  and  Overbeck  from  Germany. 
Morelli  (1826-*)  shows  this  latter  influence,  though  one  of  the 
most  important  of  the  living  men.f  In  the  1860’s  Mariano 
Fortuny,  a Spaniard  at  Rome,  led  the  younger  element  in 
the  glittering  and  the  sparkling,  and  this  style  mingled  with 
much  that  is  more  strikingly  Parisian  than  Italian,  may  be 
found  in  the  works  of  painters  like  Michetti,  De  Nittis 
(1846-1884),  Favretto,  Tito,  Nono,  Simonetti,  and  others. 

Of  recent  days  the  impressionistic  view  of  light  and  color 
has  had  its  influence  ; but  the  Italian  work  at  its  best  is  below 
that  of  France.  Segantini  \ was  one  of  the  most  promising  of 
the  younger  men  in  subjects  that  have  an  archaic  air  about 
them.  Boldini,  though  Italian  born  and  originally  following 
Fortuny’s  example,  is  really  more  Parisian  than  anything 
else.  He  is  an  artist  of  much  power  and  technical  strength 
in  genre  subjects  and  portraits. 

PRINCIPAL  WORKS:  Mannerists  — Agnolo  Bronzino,  Christ  in 
Limbo  and  many  portraits  in  Uffizi  and  Nat.  Gal.  Lon.  ; Vasari,  many 
pictures  in  galleries  at  Arezzo,  Bologna,  Berlin,  Munich,  Louvre,  Madrid  ; 
Salviati,  Charity  Christ  Uffizi,  Patience  Pitti,  St.  Thomas  Louvre, 
Love  and  Psyche  Berlin  ; Federigo  Zucchero,  Duomo  Florence,  Ducal 
Palace  Venice,  Allegories  Uffizi,  Calumny  Hampton  Court ; Baroccio, 
Pardon  of  St.  Francis  Urbino,  Annunciation  Loreto,  several  pictures  in 
Uffizi,  Nat.  Gal.  Lon.,  Louvre,  Dresden  Gal. 

Eclectics — Ludovico  Caracci,  Cathedral  frescos  Bologna,  thirteen 
pictures  Bologna  Gal.  ; Agostino  Caracci,  frescos  (with  Annibale)  Far- 
nese  Pal.  Rome,  altar-pieces  Bologna  Gal. ; Annibale  Carracci,  frescos 
(with  Agostino)  Farnese  Pal.  Rome,  other  pictures  Bologna  Gal.,  Uffizi, 
Naples  Mus.,  Dresden,  Berlin,  Louvre,  Nat.  Gal.  Lon.  ; Domenichino, 
St.  Jerome  Vatican,  S.  Pietro  in  Vincoli,  Diana  Borghese,  Bologna,  Pitti, 
Louvre,  Nat.  Gal.  Lon.  ; Guido  Reni,  frescos  Aurora  Rospigliosi  Pal. 
Rome,  many  pictures  Bologna,  Borghese  Gal.,  Pitti,  Uffizi,  Brera,  Naples, 

* Died,  1901.  t See  Scribner's  Magazine , Neapolitan  Art,  Dec.,  1890,  Feb.,  1891. 

% Died,  1899. 


ITALIAN  PAINTING. 


131 

Louvre,  and  other  galleries  of  Europe  ; Albani,  Guercino,  Sassoferrato, 
and  Carlo  Dolci,  works  in  almost  every  European  gallery,  especially 
Bologna;  Cristofano  Allori,  Judith  Pitti,  also  pictures  in  Uffizi ; Ber- 
rettini  and  Maratta,  many  examples  in  Italian  galleries,  also  Louvre. 

Naturalists— Caravaggio,  Entombment  Vatican,  many  other  works 
in  Pitti,  Uffizi,  Naples,  Louvre,  Dresden,  St.  Petersburg ; Giordano, 
Judgment  of  Paris  Berlin,  many  pictures  in  Dresden  and  Italian  galleries  ; 
Salvator  Rosa,  best  marine  in  Pitti,  other  works  Uffizi,  Brera,  Naples, 
Madrid  galleries  and  Colonna,  Corsini,  Doria,  Chigi  Palaces  Rome. 

Late  Venetians — Palma  il  Giovine,  Ducal  Palace  Venice,  Cassel, 
Dresden,  Munich,  Madrid,  Naples,  Vienna  galleries  ; Padovanino,  Mar- 
riage in  Cana  Kneeling  Angel  and  other  works  Venice  Acad.,  Carmina 
Venice,  also  galleries  of  Louvre,  Uffizi,  Borghese,  Dresden,  London ; 
Tiepolo,  large  fresco  Villa  Pisani  Stra,  Palazzo  Labia  Scuola  Carmina, 
Venice,  Villa  Valmarana,  and  at  Wurtzburg,  easel  pictures  Venice  Acad., 
Louvre,  Berlin,  Madrid  ; Canaletto  and  Guardi,  many  pictures  in  Euro- 
pean galleries. 

Modern  Italians* — Morelli,  Madonna  Royal  chap.  Castiglione, 
Assumption  Royal  chap.  Naples  ; Michetti,  The  Vow  Nat.  Gal.  Rome  ; 
De  Nittis,  Place  du  Carrousel  Luxembourg  Paris;  Boldini,  Gossips 
Met.  Mus.  New  York. 

* Only  works  in  public  places  are  given.  Those  in  private  hands 
change  too  often  for  record  here.  For  detailed  list  of  works  see  Champlin 
and  Perkins,  Cyclopedia  of  Painters  and  Paintings. 


CHAPTER  XII. 


FRENCH  PAINTING. 

H 

SIXTEENTH,  SEVENTEENTH,  AND  EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY 
PAINTING. 

Books  Recommended:  Amorim,  Vita  del  celebre  pittore 

Francesco  Primaticcio ; Berger,  Histoire  de  V Ecole  Fran;aise 
de  Peinture  an  XVI Ime  Siecle;  Bland,  Les  Peintres  des  fetes 
gal  antes,  Watteau,  Boucher , et  al .;  Curmer,  E CEuv  re  de  yean 
Fouquet ; Delaborde,  Etudes  sur  les  Beaux  Arts  en  France  et 
en  Italie ; Didot,  Etudes  sur  Jean  Cousin;  Dumont,  Antoine 
Watteau;  Dussieux,  Nouvelles  Recherches  sur  la  Vie  de  E. 
Lesueur;  Genevay,  Le  Style  Louis  XIV.,  Charles  Le  Brun; 
Goncourt,  E Art  du  XVIIIme  Siecle;  Guibel,  Eloge  de  Nicolas 
Poussin;  Guiffrey,  La  Famille  de  Jean  Cousin;  Laborde,  La 
Renaissance  des  Arts  a la  Cour  de  France;  Lagrange,  J.  Vernet 
et  la  Peinture  au  X VII Ime  Siecle;  Lecoy  de  la  Marche,  Le 
Roi  Rene;  Mantz,  Francois  Boucher;  Michiels,  Etudes  sur 
V Art  Flamand  dans  Vest  et  le  midi  de  la  France;  Muntz,  La 
Renaissance  en  Ltalie  et  en  France;  Palustre,  La  Renaissance  en 
France;  Pattison,  Renaissance  of  Art  in  France;  Pattison, 
Claude  Lorrain;  Poillon,  Nicolas  Poussin;  Stranahan,  His- 
tory of  French  Painting, 

EARLY  FRENCH  ART : Painting  in  France  did  not,  as  in 

Italy,  spring  directly  from  Christianity,  though  it  dealt  with 
the  religious  subject.  From  the  beginning  a decorative 
motive — the  strong  feature  of  French  art — appears  as  the 
chief  motive  of  painting.  This  showed  itself  largely  in 
church  ornament,  garments,  tapestries,  miniatures,  and  illu- 
minations. Mural  paintings  were  produced  during  the  fifth 
century,  probably  in  imitation  of  Italian  or  Roman  example. 


FRENCH  PAINTING. 


133 


ence  mingled  with  a great  deal  of  Flemish  precision,  and  cor- 
responded for  France  to  the  early  Renaissance  work  of  Italy, 
though  by  no  means  so  advanced.  Contemporary  with  Rene 
was  Jean  Fouquet  (1415  ?-i48o  ?)  an  illuminator  and  por- 
trait-painter, one  of  the  earliest  in  French  history.  He  was 
an  artist  of  some  original  characteristics  and  produced  an 
art  detailed  and  exact  in  its  realism.  Jean  P6real  (?-i  528?) 
and  Jean  Bourdichon  (1457  ?-i52i  ?)  with  -Fouquet’s  pupils 
and  sons,  formed  a school  at  Tours  which  afterward  came  to 


Under  Charlemagne,  in  the  eighth  century,  Byzantine  in- 
fluences were  at  work.  In  the  eleventh,  twelfth,  and  thir- 
teenth centuries  much  stained-glass  work  appeared,  and  also 
many  missal  paintings  and  furniture  decorations. 

In  the  fifteenth  century  Rene  of  Anjou  (1408-1480),  king 
and  painter,  gave  an  impetus  to  art  which  he  perhaps  origi- 
nally received  from  Italy.  His  work  showed  some  Italian  influ- 


FIG.  56. — POUSSIN.  ET  IN  ARCADIA  EGO.  LOUVRE. 


34 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


show  some  Italian  influence.  The  native  workmen  at 
Paris — they  sprang  up  from  illuminators  to  painters  in 
all  probability — showed  more  of  the  Flemish  influence. 
Neither  of  the  schools  of  the  fifteenth  century  reflected 
much  life  or  thought,  but  what  there  was  of  it  was  native  to 
the  soil,  though  their  methods  were  influenced  from  without. 

SIXTEENTH-CENTURY  PAINTING:  During  this  century 

Francis  I.,  at  Fontainebleau,  seems  to  have  encouraged  two 
schools  of  painting,  one  the  native  French  and  the  other  an 
imported  Italian,  which  afterward  took  to  itself  the  name  of 
the  “ School  of  Fontainebleau.”  Of  the  native  artists  the 
Clouets  were  the  most  conspicuous.  They  were  of  Flemish 
origin,  and  followed  Flemish  methods  both  in  technic  and 
mediums.  There  were  four  of  them,  of  whom  Jean  (1485?- 
1541?)  and  Francois  (i5oo?-i572?)  were  the  most  noteworthy. 
They  painted  many  portraits,  and  Francois’  work,  bearing 
some  resemblance  to  that  of  Holbein,  it  has  been  doubtfully 
said  that  he  was  a pupil  of  that  painter.  All  of  their  work 
was  remarkable  for  detail  and  closely  followed  facts. 

The  Italian  importation  came  about  largely  through  the 
travels  of  Francis  I.  in  Italy.  He  invited  to  Fontainebleau 
Leonardo  da  Vinci,  Andrea  del  Sarto,  II  Rosso,  Primaticcio, 
and  Niccolo  dell’  Abbate.  These  painters  rather  superseded 
and  greatly  influenced  the  French  painters.  The  result  was 
an  Italianized  school  of  French  art  which  ruled  in  France 
for  many  years.  Primaticcio  was  probably  the  greatest  of 
the  influencers,  remaining  as  he  did  for  thirty  years  in 
France.  The  native  painters,  Jean  Cousin  ( 1 500  ?-i  589)  and 
Toussaint  du  Breuil  (1561-1602)  followed  his  style,  and  in  the 
next  century  the  painters  were  even  more  servile  imitators 
of  Italy — imitating  not  the  best  models  either,  but  the  Man- 
nerists, the  Eclectics,  and  the  Roman  painters  of  the  De- 
cadence. 

SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY  PAINTING:  This  was  a century  of 
great  development  and  production  in  France,  the  time  of 


FRENCH  PAINTING. 


135 


spent  fifteen  years  in  Italy  studying  Parmigianino  and 
Michael  Angelo.  His  work  had  something  of  the  Mannerist 
style  about  it  and  was  overwrought  and  exaggerated.  In 


the  founding  of  the  French  Academy  of  Painting  and 
Sculpture,  and  the  formation  of  many  picture  collections. 
In  the  first  part  of  the  century  the  Flemish  and  native  ten- 
dencies existed,  but  they  were  overawed,  outnumbered  by 
the  Italian.  Not  even  Rubens’s  painting  for  Marie  de’ 
Medici,  in  the  palace  of  the  Luxembourg,  could  stem  the 
tide  of  Italy.  The  French  painters  flocked  to  Rome  to 
study  the  art  of  their  great  predecessors  and  were  led  astray 
by  the  flashy  elegance  of  the  late  Italians.  Among  the 
earliest  of  this  century  was  Fr&ninet  (1567-1619).  He  was 
first  taught  by  his  father  and  Jean  Cousin,  but  afterward 


FIG.  57, — CLAUDE  LORRAIN.  FLIGHT  INTO  EGYPT.  DRESDEN. 


36 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


shadows  he  seemed  to  have  borrowed  from  Caravaggio. 
Vouet  (1590-1649)  was  a student  in  Italy  of  Veronese’s 
painting  and  afterward  of  Guido  Reni  and  Caravaggio.  He 
was  a mediocre  artist,  but  had  a great  vogue  in  France  and 
left  many  celebrated  pupils. 

By  all  odds  the  best  painter  of  this  time  was  Nicolas 
Poussin  (1593-1665).  He  lived  almost  all  of  his  life  in 
Italy,  and  might  be  put  down  as  an  Italian  of  the  Decadence. 
He  was  well  versed  in  classical  archaeology,  and  had  much 
of  the  classic  taste  and  feeling  prevalent  at  that  time  in  the 
Roman  school  of  Giulio  Romano.  His  work  showed  great 
intelligence  and  had  an  elevated  grandiloquent  style  about 
it  that  was  impressive.  It  reflected  nothing  French,  and 
had  little  more  root  in  present  human  sympathy  than  any 
of  the  other  painting  of  the  time,  but  it  was  better  done. 
The  drawing  was  correct  if  severe,  the  composition  agree- 
able if  formal,  the  coloring  variegated  if  violent.  Many  of 
his  pictures  have  now  changed  for  the  worse  in  coloring 
owing  to  the  dissipation  of  surface  pigments.  He  was  the 
founder  of  the  classic  and  academic  in  .French  art,  and  in 
influence  was  the  most  important  man  of  the  century.  He 
was  especially  strong  in  the  heroic  landscape,  and  in  this 
branch  helped  form  the  style  of  his  brother-in-law,  Gaspard 
(Dughet)  Poussin  (1613-1675). 

The  landscape  painter  of  the  period,  however,  was  Claude 
Lorrain  (1600-1682).  He  differed  from  Poussin  in  making 
his  pictures  depend  more  strictly  upon  landscape  than  upon 
figures.  With  both  painters,  the  trees,  mountains,  valleys, 
buildings,  figures,  were  of  the  grand  classic  variety.  Hills 
and  plains,  sylvan  groves,  flowing  streams,  peopled  harbors, 
Ionic  and  Corinthian  temples,  Roman  aqueducts,  mytholog- 
ical groups,  were  the  materials  used,  and  the  object  of 
their  use  was  to  show  the  ideal  dwelling-place  of  man — the 
former  Garden  of  the  Gods.  Panoramic  and  slightly  theat- 
rical at  times,  Claude’s  work  was  not  without  its  poetic  side, 


FRENCH  PAINTING. 


137 


shrewd  knowledge,  and  skilful  execution.  He  was  a leader 
in  landscape,  the  man  who  first  painted  real  golden  sun- 
light and  shed  its  light  upon  earth.  There  is  a soft 


FIG.  58  — WATTEAU.  GILLES.  LOUVRE. 


summer’s-day  drowsiness,  a golden  haze  of  atmosphere,  a 
feeling  of  composure  and  restfulness  about  his  pictures 
that  are  attractive.  Like  Poussin  he  depended  much  upon 
long  sweeping  lines  in  composition,  and  upon  effects  of 
linear  perspective. 

COURT  PAINTING:  When  Louis  XIV.  came  to  the  throne 
painting  took  on  a decided  character,  but  it  was  hardly 
national  or  race  character.  The  popular  idea,  if  the  people 
had  an  idea,  did  not  obtain.  There  was  no  motive  spring- 
ing from  the  French  except  an  inclination  to  follow  Italy; 


138 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


and  in  Italy  all  the  great  art -motives  were  dead.  In 
method  the  French  painters  followed  the  late  Italians,  and 
imitated  an  imitation  ; in  matter  they  bowed  to  the  dictates 
of  the  court  and  reflected  the  king’s  mock-heroic  spirit. 
Echoing  the  fashion  of  the  day,  painting  became  pompous, 
theatrical,  grandiloquent — a mass  of  vapid  vanity  utterly 
lacking  in  sincerity  and  truth.  Lebrun  (1619-1690),  painter 
in  ordinary  to  the  king,  directed  substantially  all  the  paint- 
ing of  the  reign.  He  aimed  at  pleasing  royalty  with  flatter- 
ing allusions  to  Caesarism  and  extravagant  personifications 
of  the  king  as  a classic  conqueror.  His  art  had  neither 
truth,  nor  genius,  nor  great  skill,  and  so  sought  to  startle 
by  subject  or  size.  Enormous  canvases  of  Alexander’s 
triumphs,  in  allusion  to  those  of  the  great  Louis,  were 
turned  out  to  order,  and  Versailles  to  this  day  is  tapestried 
with  battle-pieces  in  which  Louis  is  always  victor.  Con- 
sidering the  amount  of  work  done,  Lebrun  showed  great 
fecundity  and  industry,  but  none  of  it  has  much  more  than 
a mechanical  ingenuity  about  it.  It  was  rather  original  in 
composition,  but  poor  in  drawing,  lighting,  and  coloring  ; and 
its  example  upon  the  painters  of  the  time  was  pernicious. 

His  contemporary,  Le  Sueur  (1616-1655),  was  a more 
sympathetic  and  sincere  painter,  if  not  a much  better  tech- 
nician. Both  were  pupils  of  Vouet,  but  Le  Sueur’s  art 
was  religious  in  subject,  while  Lebrun’s  was  military  and 
monarchical.  Le  Sueur  had  a feeling  for  his  theme,  but 
was  a weak  painter,  inclined  to  the  sentimental,  thin  in 
coloring,  and  not  at  all  certain  in  his  drawing.  French  al- 
lusions to  him  as  “ the  French  Raphael  ” show  more  na- 
tional complacency  than  correctness.  Sebastian  Bourdon 
(1616-1671)  was  another  painter  of  history,  but  a little  out 
of  the  Lebrun  circle.  He  was  not,  however,  free  from  the 
influence  of  Italy,  where  he  spent  three  years  studying 
color  more  than  drawing.  This  shows  in  his  works,  most 
of  which  are  lacking  in  form. 


FRENCH  PAINTING. 


139 


Contemporary  with  these  men  was  a group  of  portrait- 
painters  who  gained  celebrity  perhaps  as  much  by  their 
subjects  .as  by  their  own  powers.  They  were  facile  flat- 
terers given  over  to  the  pomps  of  the  reign  and  mirroring 
all  its  absurdities  of  fashion.  Their  work  has  a graceful, 
smooth  appearance,  and,  for  its  time,  it  was  undoubtedly 
excellent  portraiture.  Even  to  this  day  it  has  qualities  of 
drawing  and  coloring  to  commend  it,  and  at  times  one 
meets  with  exceptionally  good  work.  The  leaders  among 
these  portrait-painters  were  Philip  de  Champaigne  (1602- 
1674),  the  best  of  his  time  ; Pierre  Mignard  (1610  7-1695),  a 
pupil  of  Vouet,  who  studied  in  Rome  and  afterward  re- 
turned to  France  to  become  the  successful  rival  of  Lebrun ; 
Largilli&re  (1656-1746)  and  Rigaud  (1659-1743). 

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY  PAINTING:  The  painting  of  Louis 
XIV.’s  time  was  continued  into  the  eighteenth  century  for 
some  fifteen  years  or  more  with  little  change.  With  the 
advent  of  Louis  XV.  art  took  upon  itself  another  character, 
and  one  that  reflected  perfectly  the  moral,  social,  and  polit- 
ical  France  of  the  eighteenth  century.  The  first  Louis 
clamored  for  glory,  the  second  Louis  revelled  in  gayety, 
frivolity,  and  sensuality.  This  was  the  difference  between 
both  monarchs  and  both  arts.  The  gay  and  the  coquettish 
in  painting  had  already  been  introduced  by  the  Regent, 
himself  a dilettante  in  art,  and  when  Louis  XV.  came  to  the 
throne  it  passed  from  the  gay  to  the  insipid,  the  flippant, 
even  the  erotic.  Shepherds  and  shepherdesses  dressed  in 
court  silks  and  satins  with  cottony  sheep  beside  them  posed 
in  stage-set  Arcadias,  pretty  gods  and  goddesses  reclined 
indolently  upon  gossamer  clouds,  and  court  gallants  lounged 
under  artificial  trees  by  artificial  ponds  making  love  to 
pretty  soubrettes  from  the  theatre. 

Yet,  in  spite  of  the  lack  of  moral  and  intellectual  eleva- 
tion, in  spite  of  frivolity  and  make-believe,  this  art  was  in- 
finitely better  than  the  pompous  imitation  of  foreign  ex- 


posed  that  the  fairy  creations  of  the  age  were  intended  to 
represent  actual  nature.  They  were  designed  to  ornament 
hall  and  boudoir,  and  in  pure  decorative  delicacy  of  design, 
lightness  of  touch,  color  charm,  they  have  never  been  ex- 
celledT~The  serious  spirit  was  lacking,  but  the  gayety  of  line 
and  color  was  well  given. 

Watteau  (1684-1721)  was  the  one  chiefly  responsible  for 
the  coquette  and  soubrette  of  French  art,  and  Watteau  was, 
practically  speaking,  the  first  French  painter.  His  subjects 


140  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 

ample  set  up  by  Louis  XIV.  It  was  more  spontaneous, 
more  original,  more*,French.  The  influence  of  Italy  began 
to  fail,  and  the  painters  began  to  mirror  French  life.  It 
was  largely  court  life,  lively,  vivacious,  licentious,  but  in 
that  very  respect  characteristic  of  the  time.  Moreover, 
there  was  another  quality  about  it  that  showed  French  taste 
at  its  best — the  decoratLwe^ quality . It  can  hardly  be  sup- 


FIG.  59.— BOUCHER.  PASTORAL.  LOUVRE. 


FRENCH  PAINTING. 


141 

were  trifling  bits  of  fashionable  love-making,  scenes  from 
the  opera,  fetes,  baits;  and  the  like.  All  his  characters 
played  at  life  in  parks  and  groves  that  never  grew,  and 
most  of  his  color  was  beautifully  unreal ; but  for  all  that  the 
work  was  original,  decorative,  and  charming.  Moreover, 
Watteau  was  a brushman,  and  introduced  not  only  a new 
spirit  and  new  subject  into  art,  but  a new  method.  The 
epic  treatment  of  the  Italians  was  laid  aside  in  favor  of  a 
genre  treatment,  and  instead  of  line  and  flat  surface  Watteau 
introduced  color  and  cleverly  laid  pigment.  He  was  a 
brilliant  painter  ; not  a great  man  in  thought  or  imagina- 
tion, but  one  of  fancy,  delicacy,  and  skill.  Unfortunately 
he  set  a bad  example  by  his  gay  subjects,  and  those  who 
came  after  him  carried  his  gayety  and  lightness  of  spirit 
into  exaggeration.  Watteau’s  best  pupils  were  Lancret 
(1690-1743)  and  Pater  (1695-1736),  who  painted  in  his  style 
with  fair  results. 

After  these  men  came  Van  Loo  (1705-1765)  and  Boucher 
(1703-1770),  who  turned  Watteau’s  charming  fetes,  showing 
the  costumes  and  manners  of  the  Regency,  into  flippant  ex- 
travagance. Not  only  was  the  moral  tone  and  intellectual 
stamina  of  their  art  far  below  that  of  Watteau,  but  their 
workmanship  grew  defective.  Both  men  possessed  a re- 
markable facility  of  the  hand  and  a keen  decorative  color- 
sense  ; but  after  a time  both  became  stereotyped  and  man- 
nered. Drawing  and  modelling  were  neglected,  light  was 
wholly  conventional,  and  landscape  turned  into  a piece  of 
embroidered  background  with  a Dresden  china-tapestry 
effect  about  it.  As  decoration  the  general  effect  was  often 
excellent,  as  a serious  expression  of  life  it  was  very  weak, 
as  an  intellectual  or  moral  force  it  was  worse  than  worth- 
less. Fragonard  (1732-1806)  followed  in  a similar  style,  but 
was  a more  knowing  man,  clever  in  color,  and  a much  freer 
and  better  brushman. 

A few  painters  in  the  time  of  Louis  XV.  remained  appar- 


142  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 

ently  unaffected  by  the  court  influence,  and  stand  in  con- 
spicuous isolation.  Claude  Joseph  Vernet  (1712-1789)  was  a 
landscape  and  marine  painter  of  some  repute  in  his  time. 
He  had  a sense  of  the  pictorial,  but  not  a remarkable  sense 
of  the  truthful  in  nature.  Chardin  (1699-1779)  and  Greuze 
(1725-1805),  clung  to  portrayals  of  humble  life  and  sought  to 
popularize  the  genre  subject.  Chardin  was  not  appreciated 
by  the  masses.  His  frank  realism,  his  absolute  sincerity  of 
purpose,  his  play  of  light  and  its  effect  upon  color,  and  his 
charming  handling  of  textures  were  comparatively  unnoticed. 
Yet  as  a colorist  he  may  be  ranked  second  to  none  in  French 
art,  and  in  freshness  of  handling  his  work  is  a model  for 
present-day  painters.  Diderot  early  recognized  Chardin’s 
excellence,  and  many  artists  since  his  day  have  admired 
his  pictures  ; but  he  is  not  now  a well-known  or  popular 
painter.  The  populace  fancies  Greuze  and  his  sentimental 
heads  of  young  girls.  They  have  a prettiness  about  them 
that  is  attractive,  but  as  art  they  lack  in  force,  and  in 
workmanship  they  are  too  smooth,  finical,  and  thin  in 
handling. 

PRINCIPAL  WORKS:  All  of  these  French  painters  are  best  represented 
in  the  collections  of  the  Louvre.  Some  of  the  other  galleries,  like  the 
Dresden,  Berlin,  and  National  at  London,  have  examples  of  their  work  ; 
but  the  masterpieces  are  with  the  French  people  in  the  Louvre  and  in  the 
other  municipal  galleries  of  France. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

FRENCH  PAINTING. 

THE  NINETEENTH  CENTURY. 

Books  Recommended  : As  before,  Stranahan,  et  at.;  also 
Balliere,  Henri  Regnault ; Blanc,  Les  Artistes  de  mon  Te77ips; 
Blanc,  Histoire  des  Peintres  fran^ais  au  XIXme  Siecle ; Blanc, 
Ingres  et  son  CEuvre;  Bigot,  Peintres  frci7n;ais  co7ite77iporams ; 
Breton,  La  Vie  d'ini  A rtiste  (. English  Translatio7i );  Brownell, 
French  Art;  Burty,  Maitres  et  Petit- Maitres  Chesneau, 
Peinture  frangaise  au  XIXme  Siecle;  Clement,  Etudes  sur  les 
Beaux  Arts  e7i  France;  Clement,  Prudhon;  Delaborde, 
CEuvre  de  Paul  Delaroche;  Delecluze,  Jacques  Louis  David , 
son  Ecole , et  son  Tei7ips;  Duret,  Les  Peintres  fra7i<;ais  en  1867 ; 
Gautier,  D Art  Moder7ie;  Gautier,  Ro77ia7iticis7ne ; Gonse, 
Eugene  Fro77ientin  ; Hamerton,  Conte77ipora7j  French  Pamting  ; 
Hamerton,  Pamtmgin  Fra7ice  after  the  Decline  of  Classical  ; 
Henley,  Me77i07'ial  Catalogue  of  French  a7id  Dutch  Loan  Col- 
lectio7i  (1886)  ; Henriet,  Charles  Daubig7iy  et  so7i  CEuvre ; 
Lenormant,  Les  Artistes  Conte77iporams ; Lenormant,  A7j 
Scheffer ; Merson,  L7igres , sa  Vie  etr  so7i  CEuvre  ; Moreau, 
Decamps  et  so7i  CEuvre  ; Planche,  Etudes  sur  V Ecole  fra7i- 
(aise  ; Robaut  et  Chesneau,  D CEuvre  comp  let  d' 'Eugene  Dela- 
croix ; Sensier,  Theodore  Rousseau  ; Sensier,  Life  and  Works 
of  f.  F.  Millet ; Silvestre,  Histoire  des  A7'tistes  vivants  et 
etra7igers  ; Strahan,  Modern  French  Art;  Thore,  H Art  Con- 
temporain  ; Theuriet,  Jules  B astien- Lepage  ; Van  Dyke,  Mod- 
ern French  Maste7-s. 

THE  REVOLUTIONARY  TIME : In  considering1  this  century’s 
art  in  Europe,  it  must  be  remembered  that  a great  social 
and  intellectual  change  has  taken  place  since  the  days  of 
the  Medici.  The  power_so  long  pent  up  in  Italy  during  the 
Renaissance  finally  broke  and  scattered  itself  upon  the 


a necessity  of  life,  passed  into  a luxury,  and  the  king,  the 
state,  or  the  private  collector  became  the  patron.  Nature 
and  actual  life  were  about  the  only  sources  left  from  which 
original  art  could  draw  its  materials.  These  have  been 
freely  used,  but  not  so  much  in  a national  as  in  an  indi- 
vidual manner.  The  tendency  to-day  is  not  to  put  forth  a 
universal  conception  but  an  individual  belief.  Individualism 
— the  same  quality  that  appeared  so  strongly  in  Michael 
Angelo’s  art — has  become  a keynote  in  modern  work.  It 


144  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 

western  nations  ; societies  and  states  were  torn  down  and 
rebuilded,  political,  social,  and  religious  ideas  shifted  into 
new  garbs  ; the  old  order  passed  away. 

Religion  as  an  art -motive,  or  even  as  an  art -subject, 
ceased  to  obtain  anywhere.  The  Church  failed  as  an  art- 
patron,  and  the  walls  of  cloister  and  cathedral  furnished  no 
new  Bible  readings  to  the  unlettered.  Painting,  from  being 


FIG.  60. — DAVID.  THE  SABINES.  LOUVRE. 


FRENCH  PAINTING. 


145 


is  not  the  only  kind  of  art  that  has  been  shown  in  this  cen- 
tury, nor  is  nature  the  only  theme  from  which  art  has  been 
derived.  We  must  remember  and  consider  the  influence  of 
the  past  upon  modern  men,  and  the  attempts  to  restore  the 
classic  beauty  of  the  Greek,  Roman,  and  Italian,  which  prac- 
tically ruled  French  painting  in  the  first  part  of  this  century. 

FRENCH  CLASSICISM  OF  DAVID : This  was  a revival  of  Greek 
form  in  art,  founded  on  the  belief  expressed  by  Winckel- 
mann,  that  beauty  lay  in  form,  and  was  best  shown  by  the 
ancient  Greeks.  It  was  the  objective  view  of  art  which  saw 
beauty  in  the  external  and  tolerated  no  individuality  in  the  J 
artist  except  that  which  was  shown  in  technical  skill.  It 
was  little  more  than  an  imitation  of  the  Greek  and  Roman 
marbles  as  types,  with  insistence  upon  perfect  form,  correct 
drawing,  and  balanced  composition.  In  theme  and  spirit  it 
was  pseudo-heroic,  the  incidents  of  Greek  and  Roman  his- 
tory forming  the  chief  subjects,  and  in  method  it  rather 
despised  color,  light-and-shade,  and  natural  surroundings. 

It  was  elevated,  lofty,  ideal  in  aspiration,  but  coldly  unsym- 
pathetic because  lacking  in  contemporary  interest  ; and, 
though  correct  enough  in  classic  form,  was  lacking  in  the 
classic  spirit.  Like  all  reanimated  art,  it  was  derivative  as 
regards  its  forms  and  lacking  in  spontaneity.  The  reason 
for  the  existence  of  Greek  art  died  with  its  civilization,  and 
those,  like  the  French  classicists,  who  sought  to  revive  it, 
brought  a copy  of  the  past  into  the  present,  expecting  the 
world  to  accept  it. 

There  was  some  social,  and  perhaps  artistic,  reason,  how- 
ever, for  the  revival  of  the  classic  in  the  French  art  of  the 
late  eighteenth  century.  It  was  a revolt,  and  at  that  time 
revolts  were  popular.  The  art  of  Boucher  and  Van  Loo 
had  become  quite  unbearable.  It  was  flippant,  careless, 
licentious.  It  had  no  seriousness  or  dignity  about  it. 
Moreover,  it  smacked  of  the  Bourbon  monarchy,  which 
people  had  come  to  hate.  Classicism  was  severe,  elevated, 

10 


4 6 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


respectable  at  least,  and  had  the  air  of  the  heroic  republic 
about  it.  It  was  a return  to  a sterner  view  of  life,  with 
the  martial  spirit  behind  it  as  an  impetus,  and  it  had  a 
great  vogue.  For  many  years  during  the  Revolution,  the 
Consulate,  and  the  Empire,  classicism  was  accepted  by  the 
sovereigns  and  the  Institute  of  France,  and  to  this  day  it 
lives  in  a modified  form  in  that  semi-classic  work  known  as 
academic  art. 

THE  CLASSIC  SCHOOL:  Vien  (17 1 6-1 809)  was  the  first  painter 
to  protest  against  the  art  of  Boucher  and  Van  Loo  by  advo- 
cating more  nobility  of  form  and  a closer  study  of  nature. 
He  was,  however,  more  devoted  to  the  antique  forms  he 
had  studied  in  Rome  than  to  nature.  In  subject  and  lino 
his  tendency  was  classic,  with  a leaning  toward  the  Italians 
of  the  Decadence.  He  lacked  the  force  to  carry  out  a 
complete  reform  in  painting,  but  his  pupil  David  (1 748-1825) 
accomplished  what  he  had  begun.  It  was  David  who 
established  the  reign  of  classicism,  and  by  native  power 
became  the  leader.  The  time  was  appropriate,  the  Revolu- 
tion called  for  pictures  of  Romulus,  Brutus  and  Achilles, 
and  Napoleon  encouraged  the  military  theme.  David  had 
studied  the  marbles  at  Rome,  and  he  used  them  largely  for 
models,  reproducing  scenes  from  Greek  and  Roman  life  in 
an  elevated  and  sculpturesque  style,  with  much  archaeo- 
logical knowledge  and  a great  deal  of  skill.  In  color, 
relief,  sentiment,  individuality,  his  painting  was  lacking. 
He  despised  all  that.  The  rhythm  of  line,  the  sweep  of 
composed  groups,  the  heroic  subject  and  the  heroic  treat- 
ment, made  up  his  art.  It  was  thoroughly  objective,  and 
what  contemporary  interest  it  possessed  lay  largely  in  the 
martial  spirit  then  prevalent.  Of  course  it  was  upheld  by 
the  Institute,  and  it  really  set  the  pace  for  French  paint- 
ing for  nearly  half  a century.  When  David  was  called 
upon  to  paint  Napoleonic  pictures  he  painted  them  under 
protest,  and  yet  these,  with  his  portraits,  constitute  his 


FRENCH  PAINTING.  147 

best  work.  In  portraiture  he  was  uncommonly  strong  at 
times. 

After  the  Restoration  David,  who  had  been  a revolution- 
ist, and  then  an  adherent  of  Napoleon,  was  sent  into  exile  ; 
but  the  influence  he  had  left  and  the  school  he  had  estab- 
lished were  carried  on  by  his  contemporaries  and  pupils. 
Of  the  former  Regnault  (1754-1829),  Vincent  (1746-1816), 
and  Prndhon  (1758-1823)  were  the  most  conspicuous.  The 
last  one  was  considered  as  out  of  the  classic  circle,  but  so 
far  as  making  his  art  depend  upon  drawing  and  composition, 


FIG.  6l. — INGRES.  CEDIPUS  AND  SPHINX.  LOUVRE. 


he  was  a genuine  classicist.  His  subjects,  instead  of  being 
heroic,  inclined  to  the  mythological  and  the  allegorical.  In 
Italy  he  had  been  a student  of  the  Renaissance  painters, 
and  from  them  borrowed  a method  of  shadow  gradation  that 


148 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


rendered  his  figures  misty  and  phantom-like.  They  possessed 
an  ease  of  movement  sometimes  called  “ Prudhonesque 
grace,”  and  in  composition  were  well  placed  and  effective. 

Of  David’s  pupils  there  were  many.  Only  a few  of 
them,  however,  had  pronounced  ability,  and  even  these 
carried  David’s  methods  into  the  theatrical.  Girodet 
(1766-1824)  was  a draughtsman  of  considerable  power, 
but  with  poor  taste  in  color  and  little  repose  in  composi- 
tion. Most  of  his  work  was  exaggeration  and  strained 
effect.  Lethiere  (1760-1832)  and  Gu6rin  (1774-1833),  pupils 
of  Regnault,  were  painters  akin  to  Girodet,  but  inferior  to 
him.  G6rard  (1770-1837)  was  a weak  David  follower,  who 
gained  some  celebrity  by  painting  portraits  of  celebrated 
men  and  women.  The  two  pupils  of  David  who  brought 
him  the  most  credit  were  Ingres  (1780-1867)  and  Gros 
(1771-1835).  Ingres  was  a cold,  persevering  man,  whose 
principles  had  been  well  settled  by  David  early  in  life,  and 
were  adhered  to  with  conviction  by  the  pupil  to  the  last. 
He  modified  the  classic  subject  somewhat,  studied  Raphael 
and  the  Italians,  and  reintroduced  the  single  figure  into 
art  (the  Source,  and  the  Odalisque,  for  example).  For 
color  he  had  no  fancy.  “ In  nature  all  is  form,”  he  used  to 
say.  Painting  he  thought  not  an  independent  art,  but  “ a 
development  of  sculpture.”  To  consider  emotion,  color, 
or  light  as  the  equal  of  form  was  monstrous,  and  to  compare 
Rembrandt  with  Raphael  was  blasphemy.  To  this  belief 
he  clung  to  the  end,  faithfully  reproducing  the  human 
figure,  and  it  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  that  eventually  he 
became  a learned  draughtsman.  His  single  figures  and  his 
portraits  show  him  to  the  best  advantage.  He  had  a 
strong  grasp  of  modelling  and  an  artistic  sense  of  the  beauty 
and  dignity  of  line  not  excelled  by  any  artist  of  this  century. 
And  to  him  more  than  any  other  painter  is  due  the  cult- 
ured draughtsmanship  which  is  to-day  the  just  pride  of  the 
French  school. 


FRENCH  PAINTING. 


149 


Gros  was  a more  vacillating  man,  and  by  reason  of  forsak- 
ing the  classic  subject  for  Napoleonic  battle-pieces,  he  uncon- 
sciously led  the  way  toward  romanticism.  He  excelled  as 
a draughtsman,  but  when  he  came  to  paint  the  Field  of 
Eylau  and  the  Pest  of  Jaffa  he  mingled  color,  light,  air, 
movement,  action,  sacrificing  classic  composition  and  repose 
to  reality.  This  was  heresy  from  the  Davidian  point  of 
view,  and  David  eventually  convinced  him  of  it.  Gros 
returned  to  the  classic  theme  and  treatment,  but  soon  after 
was  so  reviled  by  the  changing  criticism  of  the  time  that 
he  committed  suicide  in  the  Seine.  His  art,  however,  was 
the  beginning  of  romanticism. 

The  landscape  painting  of  this  time  was  rather  academic 
and  unsympathetic.  It  was  a continuation  of  the  Claude- 
Poussin  tradition,  and  in  its  insistence  upon  line,  grandeur 
of  space,  and  imposing  trees  and  mountains,  was  a fit  com- 
panion to  the  classic  figure-piece.  It  had  little  basis  in 
nature,  and  little  in  color  or  feeling  to  commend  it.  Watelet 
(1780-1866),  Bertin  (1775-1842),  Michallon  (1796-1822),  and 
Aligny  (1798-1871),  were  its  exponents. 

A few  painters  seemed  to  stand  apart  from  the  contempo- 
rary influences.  Madame  Vigee-Lebrun  (1755-1842),  a suc- 
cessful portrait-painter  of  nobility,  and  Horace  Vernet  (1  7 89— 
1 863),  a popular  battle-painter,  many  of  whose  works  are  to 
be  seen  at  Versailles,  were  of  this  class. 

ROMANTICISM:  The  movement  in  French  painting  which 
began  about  1822  and  took  the  name  of  Romanticism  was 
but  a part  of  the  “ storm-and-stress  ” feeling  that  swept 
Germany,  England,  and  France  at  the  beginning  of  this  cen- 
tury, appearing  first  in  literature  and  afterward  in  art.  It 
had  its  origin  in  a discontent  with  the  present,  a passionate 
yearning  for  the  unattainable,  an  intensity  of  sentiment, 
gloomy  melancholy  imaginings,  and  a desire  to  express  the 
inexpressible.  It  was  emphatically  subjective,  self-con- 
scious, a mood  of  mind  or  feeling.  In  this  respect  it  was 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


sicism  of  David.  People  had  begun  to  weary  of  Greek  and 
Roman  heroes  and  their  deeds,  of  impersonal  line-bounded 
statuesque  art.  There  was  a demand  for  something  more 
representative,  spontaneous,  expressive  of  the  intense  feel- 
ing of  the  time.  The  very  gist  of  romanticism  was  pas- 
sion. Freedom  to  express  itself  in  what  form  it  would  was 
a condition  of  its  existence. 

The  classic  subject  was  abandoned  by  the  romanticists 
for  dramatic  scenes  of  mediaeval  and  modern  times.  The 
romantic  hero  and  heroine  in  scenes  of  horror,  perils  by  land 
and  sea,  flame  and  fury,  love  and  anguish,  came  upon  the 


FIG.  6 2. — DELACROIX.  MASSACRE  OF  SCIO.  LOUVRE. 


diametrically  opposed  to  the  academic  and  the  classic.  In 
French  painting  it  came  forward  in  opposition  to  the  clas- 


FRENCH  PAINTING. 


151 

boards.  Much  of  this  was  illustration  of  history,  the  novel, 
and  poetry,  especially  the  poetry  of  Goethe,  Byron,  and 
Scott.  Line  was  slurred  in  favor  of  color,  symmetrical  com- 
position gave  way  to  wild  disordered  groups  in  headlong 
action,  and  atmospheres,  skies,  and  lights  were  twisted  and 
distorted  to  convey  the  sentiment  of  the  story.  It  was 
thus,  more  by  suggestion  than  realization,  that  romanticism 
sought  to  give  the  poetic  sentiment  of  life.  Its  position 
toward  classicism  was  antagonistic,  a rebound,  a flying  to 
the  other  extreme.  One  virtually  said  that  beauty  was  in 
the  Greek  form,  the  other  that  it  was  in  the  painter’s  emo- 
tional nature.  The  disagreement  was  violent,  and  out  of  it 
grew  the  so-called  romantic  quarrel  of  the  1820’s. 

LEADERS  OF  ROMANTICISM : Symptoms  of  the  coming  move- 
ment were  apparent  long  before  any  open  revolt.  Gros  had 
made  innovations  on  the  classic  in  his  battle-pieces,  but  the 
first  positive  dissent  from  classic  teachings  was  made  in  the 
Salon  of  1819  by  Gericault  (1791-1824)  with  his  Raft  of  the 
Medusa.  It  represented  the  starving,  the  dead,  and  the  dy- 
ing of  the  Medusa’s  crew  on  a raft  in  mid-ocean.  The  sub- 
ject was  not  classic.  It  was  literary,  romantic,  dramatic, 
almost  theatric  in  its  seizing  of  the  critical  moment.  Its 
theme  was  restless,  harrowing,  horrible.  It  met  with  in- 
stant opposicion  from  the  old  men  and  applause  from  the 
young  men.  It  was  the  trumpet-note  of  the  revolt,  but 
Gericault  did  not  live  long  enough  to  become  the  leader  of 
romanticism.  That  position  fell  to  his  contemporary  and 
fellow-pupil,  Delacroix  (1799-1863).  It  was  in  1822  that 
Delacroix’s  first  Salon  picture  (the  Dante  and  Virgil)  ap- 
peared. A strange,  ghost-like  scene  from  Dante’s  Inferno , 
the  black  atmosphere  of  the  nether  world,  weird  faces, 
weird  colors,  weird  flames,  and  a modelling  of  the  figures  by 
patches  of  color  almost  savage  as  compared  to  the  tinted 
drawing  of  classicism.  Delacroix’s  youth  saved  the  picture 
from  condemnation,  but  it  was  different  with  his  Massacre  of 


152 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


Scio  two  years  later.  This  was  decried  by  the  classicists,  and 
even  Gros  called  it  “ the  massacre  of  art.”  The  painter  was 
accused  of  establishing  the  worship  of  the  ugly,  he  was  no 
draughtsman,  had  no  selection,  no  severity,  nothing  but  bru- 
tality. But  Delacroix  was  as  obstinate  as  Ingres,  and  declared 
that  the  whole  world  could  not  prevent  him  from  seeing  and 
painting  things  in  his  own  way.  It  was  thus  the  quarrel 
started,  the  young  men  siding  with  Delacroix,  the  older  men 
following  David  and  Ingres. 

In  himself  Delacroix  embodied  all  that  was  best  and 
strongest  in  the  romantic  movement.  His  painting  was  in- 
tended to  convey  a romantic  mood  of  mind  by  combinations 
of  color,  light,  air,  and  the  like.  In  subject  it  was  tragic 
and  passionate,  like  the  poetry  of  Hugo,  Byron,  and  Scott. 
The  figures  were  usually  given  with  anguish-wrung  brows, 
wild  eyes,  dishevelled  hair,  and  impetuous,  contorted  action. 
The  painter  never  cared  for  technical  details,  seeking  al- 
ways to  gain  the  effect  of  the  whole  rather  than  the  exact- 
ness of  the  part.  He  purposely  slurred  drawing  at  times, 
and  was  opposed  to  formal  composition.  In  color  he  was 
superior,  though  somewhat  violent  at  times,  and  in  brush- 
work  he  was  often  labored  and  patchy.  His  strength  lay  in 
imagination  displayed  in  color  and  in  action. 

The  quarrel  between  classicism  and  romanticism  lasted 
some  years,  with  neither  side  victorious.  Delacroix  won  rec- 
ognition for  his  view  of  art,  but  did  not  crush  the  belief  in 
form  which  was  to  come  to  the  surface  again.  He  fought 
almost  alone.  Many  painters  rallied  around  him,  but 
they  added  little  strength  to  the  new  movement.  Dev6ria 
(1805-1865)  and  Champmartin  (1797-1883)  were  highly 
thought  of  at  first,  but  they  rapidly  degenerated.  Sigalon 
(1788-1837),  Cogniet  (1794-1880),  Robert  - Fleury  (1797-), 
and  Boulanger  (1806-1867),  were  romanticists,  but  achieved 
more  as  teachers  than  as  painters.  Delaroche  (1797-1856) 
was  an  eclectic — in  fact,  founded  a school  of  that  name— 


FRENCH  PAINTING. 


153 


1858)  was  an  illustrator  of  Goethe  and  Byron,  frail  in  both 
sentiment  and  color,  a painter  who  started  as  a romanticist, 
but  afterward  developed  line  under  Ingres. 

THE  ORIENTALISTS : In  both  literature  and  painting  one 
phase  of  romanticism  showed  itself  in  a love  for  the  life, 
the  light,  the  color  of  the  Orient.  From  Paris  Decamps 
(1803-1860)  was  the  first  painter  to  visit  the  East  and  paint 
Eastern  life*  He  was  a genre  painter  more  than  a figure 
painter,  giving  naturalistic  street  scenes  in  Turkey  and  Asia 
Minor,  courts,  and  interiors,  with  great  feeling  for  air, 


thinking  to  take  what  was  best  from  both  parties.  Invent- 
ing nothing,  he  profited  by  all  invented.  He  employed  the 
romantic  subject  and  color,  but  adhered  to  classic  drawing. 
His  composition  was  good,  his  costume  careful  in  detail, 
his  brush-work  smooth,  and  his  story-telling  capacity  ex- 
cellent. All  these  qualities  made  him  a popular  painter, 
but  not  an  original  or  powerful  one.  Ary  Scheffer  (1797- 


FIG.  63. — GEROME.  POLLICE  VERSO. 


154 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


warmth  of  color,  and  light.  At  about  the  same  time  Maril- 
hat  (1811-1847)  was  in  Egypt  picturing  the  life  of  that 
country  in  a similar  manner  ; and  later,  Fromentin  (1820- 
1876),  painter  and  writer,  following  Delacroix,  went  to  Al- 
giers and  portrayed  there  Arab  life  with  fast-flying  horses, 
the  desert  air,  sky,  light,  and  color.  Theodore  Frere  and 
Ziem  belong  further  on  in  the  century,  but  were  no  less  ex- 
ponents of  romanticism  in  the  East. 

Fifteen  years  after  the  starting  of  romanticism  the  move- 
ment had  materially  subsided.  It  had  never  been  a school 
in  the  sense  of  having  rules  and  laws  of  art.  Liberty  of 
thought  and  perfect  freedom  for  individual  expression  were 
all  it  advocated.  As  a result  there  was  no  unity,  for  there 
was  nothing  to  unite  upon  ; and  with  every  painter  paint- 
ing as  he  pleased,  regardless  of  law,  extravagance  was 
inevitable.  This  was  the  case,  and  when  the  next  gen- 
eration came  in  romanticism  began  to  be  ridiculed  for 
its  excesses.  A reaction  started  in  favor  of  more  line 
and  academic  training.  This  was  first  shown  by  the  stu- 
dents of  Delaroche,  though  there  were  a number  of  move- 
ments at  the  time,  all  of  them  leading  away  from  roman- 
ticism. A recoil  from  too  much  color  in  favor  of  more 
form  was  inevitable,  but  romanticism  was  not  to  perish 
entirely.  Its  influence  was  to  go  on,  and  to  appear  in  the 
work  of  later  men. 

ECLECTICS  AND  TRANSITIONAL  PAINTERS:  After  Ingres  his 
follower  Flandrin  (1809-1864)  was  the  most  considerable 
draughtsman  of  the  time.  He  was  not  classic  but  religious 
in  subject,  and  is  sometimes  called  “the  religious  painter 
of  France.”  He  had  a delicate  beauty  of  line  and  a fine 
feeling  for  form,  but  never  was  strong  in  color,  brushwork, 
or  sentiment.  His  best  work  appears  in  his  very  fine  por- 
traits. Gleyre  (1806-1874)  was  a man  of  classic  methods, 
but  romantic  tastes,  who  modified  the  heroic  into  the 
idyllic  and  mythologic.  He  was  a sentimental  day-dreamer, 


FRENCH  PAINTING. 


155 


with  a touch  of  melancholy  about  the  vanished  past,  ap- 
pearing in  Arcadian  fancies,  pretty  nymphs,  and  idealized 
memories  of  youth.  In  execution  he  was  not  at  all  ro- 
mantic. His  color  was  pale,  his  drawing  delicate,  and  his 
lighting  misty  and  uncertain.  It  was  the  etherealized 
classic  method,  and  this  method  he  transmitted  to  a little 
band  of  painters  called  the 

NEW-GREEKS,  who,  in  point  of  time,  belong  much  further 
along  in  the  century,  but  in  their  art  are  with  Gleyre. 
Their  work  never  rose  above  the  idyllic  and  the  graceful,  and 
calls  for  no  special  mention.  Hamon  (1821-1874)  and  Aubert 
(1824-)  belonged  to  the  band,  and  G6rome  (1824-*)  was  at  one 
time  its  leader,  but  he  afterward  emerged  from  it  to  a higher 
place  in  French  art,  where  he  will  find  mention  hereafter. 

Couture  (1815-1879)  stood  quite  by  himself,  a mingling  of 
several  influences.  His  chief  picture,  The  Romans  of  the 
Decadence,  is  classic  in  subject,  romantic  in  sentiment 
(and  this  very  largely  expressed  by  warmth  of  color),  and 
rather  realistic  in  natural  appearance.  He  was  an  eclectic 
in  a way,  and  yet  seems  to  stand  as  the  forerunner  of  a 
large  body  of  artists  who  find  classification  hereafter  under 
the  title  of  the  Semi-Classicists. 

PRINCIPAL  WORKS:  All  the  painters  mentioned  in  this  chapter  are 
best  represented  in  the  Louvre  at  Paris,  at  Versailles,  and  in  the  museums 
of  the  chief  French  cities.  Some  works  of  the  late  or  living  men  may  be 
found  in  the  Luxembourg,  where  pictures  bought  by  the  state  are  kept 
for  ten  years  after  the  painter’s  death,  and  then  are  either  sent  to  the 
Louvre  or  to  the  other  municipal  galleries  of  France.  Some  pictures  by 
these  men  are  also  to  be  seen  in  the  Metropolitan  Museum,  New  York, 
the  Boston  Museum,  and  the  Chicago  Art  Institute. 

* Died,  1904. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 


FRENCH  PAINTING. 

THE  NINETEENTH  century  ( Continued ). 

Books  Recommended  : The  books  before  mentioned,  com 
suit  also  General  Bibliography,  (page  xv.) 

THE  LANDSCAPE  PAINTERS:  The  influence  of  either  the 
classic  or  romantic  example  may  be  traced  in  almost  all  of 
the  French  painting  of  this  century.  The  opposed  teach- 
ings find  representatives  in  new  men,  and  under  different 
names  the  modified  dispute  goes  on — the  dispute  of  the  aca- 
demic versus  the  individual,  the  art  of  form  and  line  versus 
the  art  of  sentiment  and  color. 

With  the  classicism  of  David  not  only  the  figure  but  the 
landscape  setting  of  it,  took  on  an  ideal  heroic  character. 
Trees  and  hills  and  rivers  became  supernaturally  grand  and 
impressive.  Everything  was  elevated  by  method  to  produce 
an  imaginary  Arcadia  fit  for  the  deities  of  the  classic  world. 
The  result  was  that  nature  and  the  humanity  of  the  painter 
passed  out  in  favor  of  school  formula  and  academic  tradi- 
tions. When  romanticism  came  in  this  was  changed,  but 
nature  falsified  in  another  direction.  Landscape  was  given  an 
interest  in  human  affairs,  and  made  to  look  gay  or  sad,  peace- 
ful or  turbulent,  as  the  day  went  well  or  ill  with  the  hero  of 
the  story  portrayed.  It  was,  however,  truer  to  the  actual 
than  the  classic,  more  studied  in  the  parts,  more  united  in 
the  whole.  About  the  year  1830  the  influence  of  roman- 
ticism began  to  show  in  a new  landscape  art.  That  is  to 


FRENCH  PAINTING. 


157 


set  a large  number  of  painters  to  the  close  study  of  nature 
and  ultimately  developed  what  has  been  vaguely  called  the 

FONTAINEBLEAU  BARBIZON  SCHOOL:  This  whole  school  was 
primarily  devoted  to  showing  the  sentiment  of  color  and 
light.  It  took  nature  just  as  it  found  it  in  the  forest  of 
Fontainebleau,  on  the  plain  of  Barbizon,  and  elsewhere,  and 
treated  it  with  a poetic  feeling  for  light,  shadow,  atmos- 
phere, color,  that  resulted  in  the  best  landscape  painting 
yet  known  to  us. 

Corot  (1796-1875)  though  classically  trained  under  Bertin, 
and  though  somewhat  apart  from  the  other  men  in  his  life, 
belongs  with  this  group.  He  was  a man  whose  artistic  life 
was  filled  with  the  beauty  of  light  and  air.  These  he  painted 
with  great  singleness  of  aim  and  great  poetic  charm.  Most 
of  his  work  is  in  a light  silvery  key  of  color,  usually  slight 


FIG.  64. — COROT.  LANDSCAPE. 


say,  the  emotional  impulse  springing  from  romanticism  com- 
bined with  the  study  of  the  old  Dutch  landscapists,  and  the 
English  contemporary  painters,  Constable  and  Bonington, 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


158 

in  composition,  simple  in  masses  of  light  and  dark,  and  very 
broadly  but  knowingly  handled  with  the  brush.  He  began 
painting  by  using  the  minute  brush,  but  changed  it  later  on 
for  a freer  style  which  recorded  only  the  great  omnipresent 
truths  and  suppressed  the  small  ones.  He  has  never  had 
a superior  in  producing  the  permeating  light  of  morning 
and  evening.  For  this  alone,  if  for  no  other  excellence,  he 
deservedly  holds  high  rank. 

Rousseau  (1812-1867)  was  one  of  the  foremost  of  the  rec- 
ognizedHeaders,  and  probably  the  most  learned  landscap- 
ist of  this  century.  A man  of  many  moods  and  methods  he 
produced  in  variety  with  rare  versatility.  Much  of  his  work 
was  experimental,  but  at  his  best  he  had  a majestic  concep- 
tion of  nature,  a sense  of  its  power  and  permanence,  its 
volume  and  mass,  that  often  resulted  in  the  highest  quality 
of  pictorial  poetry.  In  color  he  was  rich  and  usually  warm, 
in  technic  firm  and  individual,  in  sentiment  at  times  quite 
sublime.  At  first  he  painted  broadly  and  won  friends 
among  the  artists  and  sneers  from  the  public  ; then  in  his 
middle  style  he  painted  in  detail,  and  had  a period  of  popu- 
lar success  ; in  his  late  style  he  went  back  to  the  broad 
manner,  and  died  amid  quarrels  and  vexations  of  spirits. 
His  long-time  friend  and  companion,  Jules  Dupre  (1812- 
1889),  hardly  reached  up  to  him,  though  a strong  painter 
in  landscape  and  marine.  He  was  a good  but  not  great 
colorist,  and,  technically,  his  brush  was  broad  enough  but 
sometimes  heavy.  His  late  work  is  inferior  in  sentiment 
and  labored  in  handling.  Diaz  (1808-1876)  was  allied  to 
Rousseau  in  aim  and  method,  though  not  so  sure  nor  so  pow- 
erful a painter.  He  had  fancy  and  variety  in  creation  that 
sometimes  ran  to  license,  and  in  color  he  was  clear  and  brill- 
iant. Never  very  well  trained,  his  drawing  is  often  indif- 
ferent and  his  light  distorted,  but  these  are  more  than 
atoned  for  by  delicacy  and  poetic  charm.  At  times  he 
painted  with  much  power.  Daubigny  (1817-1878)  seemed 


FRENCH  PAINTING. 


159 


more  like  Corot  in  his  charm  of  style  and  love  of  atmos- 
phere and  light  than  any  of  the  others.  He  was  fond  of 
the  banks  of  the  Seine  and  the  Marne  at  twilight,  with  even- 
ing atmospheres  and  dark  trees  standing  in  silent  ranks 
against  the  warm  sky.  He  was  also  fond  of  the  gray  day 
along  the  coast,  and  even  the  sea  attracted  him  not  a little. 
He  was  a painter  of  high  abilities,  and  in  treatment  strongly 
individual,  even  distinguished,  by  his  simplicity  and  direct- 
ness. Unity  of  the  whole,  grasp  of  the  mass  entire,  was  his 
technical  aim,  and  this  he  sought  to  get  not  so  much  by 
line  as  by  color-tones  of  varying  value.  In  this  respect  he 
seemed  a connecting  link  between  Corot  and  the  present- 
day  impressionists.  Michel  (1763-1842),  Huet  (1804-1869), 
Chintreuil  (1814-1873),  and  Francais  ([814-)  were  all  allied 
in  point  of  view  with  this  group  of  landscape  painters,  and 
among  the  late  men  who  have  carried  out  their  beliefs  are 
Cazin,  Yon,  Damoye,  Pointelin.  Harpignies  and  Pelouse  * 
seem  a little  more  inclined  to  the  realistic  than  the  poetic 
view,  though  producing  work  of  much  virility  and  intelli- 
gence. 

Contemporary  and  associated  with  the  Fontainebleau 
painters  were  a number  of  men  who  won  high  distinction  as 

PAINTERS  OF  ANIMALS:  Troyon  (1810-1865)  was  the  most 
prominent  among  them.  His  work  shows  the  same  senti- 
ment of  light  and  color  as  the  Fontainebleau  landscapists, 
and  with  it  there  is  much  keen  insight  into  animal  life.  As 
a technician  he  was  rather  hard  at  first,  and  he  never  was  a 
correct  draughtsman,  but  he  had  a way  of  giving  the  char- 
acter of  the  objects  he  portrayed  which  is  the  very  essence 
of  truth.  He  did  many  landscapes  with  and  without  cattle. 
His  best  pupil  was  Van  Marcke  (1827-1890),  who  followed 
his  methods  but  never  possessed  the  feeling  of  his  master. 
Jacque  (1813-*)  is  also  of  the  Fontainebleau-Barbizon  group, 
and  is  justly  celebrated  for  his  paintings  and  etchings  of 
sheep.  The  poetry  of  the  school  is  his,  and  technically  he 

* Died  1890. 


i6o 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


is  fine  in  color  at  times,  if  often  rather  dark  in  illumination. 
Like  Troyon  he  knows  his  subject  well,  and  can  show  the 
nature  of  sheep  with  true  feeling.  Rosa  Bonheur  (1822-*) 
and  her  brother,  Auguste  Bonheur  (1824-1884),  have  both 
dealt  with  animal  life,  but  never  with  that  fine  artistic 
feeling  which  would  warrant  their  popularity.  Their  work 
is  correct  enough,  but  prosaic  and  commonplace  in  spirit. 
They  do  not  belong  in  the  same  group  with  Troyon  and 
Rousseau. 

THE  PEASANT  PAINTERS:  Allied  again  in  feeling  and  senti- 
ment with  the  Fontainebleau  landscapists  were  some  cele- 
brated painters  of  peasant  life,  chief  among  whom  stood 


FIG.  65. — ROUSSEAU,  CHARCOAL  BURNERS’  HUT.  FULLER  COLLECTION. 


Millet  (18  14- 1 875),  of  Barbizon.  The  pictoral  inclination  of 
Millet  was  early  grounded  by  a study  of  Delacroix,  the 
master  romanticist,  and  his  work  is  an  expression  of  roman- 


* Died,  1899. 


FRENCH  PAINTING. 


161 


ticism  modified  by  an  individual  study  of  nature  and  applied 
to  peasant  life.  He  was  peasant  born,  living  and  dying  at 
Barbizon,  sympathizing  with  his  class,  and  painting  them 
with  great  poetic  force  and  simplicity.  His  sentiment 
sometimes  has  a literary  bias,  as  in  his  far-famed  but  indif- 
ferent Angelus,  but  usually  it  is  strictly  pictorial  and  has  to 
do  with  the  beauty  of  light,  air,  color,  motion,  life,  as  shown 
in  The  Sower  or  The  Gleaners.  Technically  he  was  not 
strong  as  a draughtsman  or  a brushman,  but  he  had  a large 
feeling  for  form,  great  simplicity  in  line,  keen  perception  of 
the  relations  of  light  and  dark,  and  at  times  an  excellent 
color-sense.  He  was  virtually  the  discoverer  of  the  peas- 
ant as  an  art  subject,  and  for  this,  as  for  his  original  point 
of  view  and  artistic  feeling,  he  is  ranked  as  one  of  the  fore- 
most artists  of  the  century. 

Jules  Breton  (1827-),  though  painting  little  besides  the 
peasantry,  is  no  Millet  follower,  for  he  started  painting 
peasant  scenes  at  about  the  same  time  as  Millet.  His  af- 
finities were  with  the  New-Greeks  early  in  life,  and  ever 
since  he  has  inclined  toward  the  academic  in  style,  though 
handling  the  rustic  subject.  He  is  a good  technician,  ex- 
cept in  his  late  work  ; but  as  an  original  thinker,  as  a pic- 
torial poet,  he  does  not  show  the  intensity  or  profundity  of 
Millet.  The  followers  of  the  Millet-Breton  tradition  are 
many.  The  blue-frocked  and  sabot-shod  peasantry  have 
appeared  in  salon  and  gallery  for  twenty  years  and  more, 
but  with  not  very  good  results.  The  imitators,  as  usual, 
have  caught  at  the  subject  and  missed  the  spirit.  Billet 
and  Legros,  contemporaries  of  Millet,  still  living,  and  Lerolle, 
a man  of  present-day  note,  are  perhaps  the  most  consider- 
able of  the  painters  of  rural  subjects  to-day. 

THE  SEMI-CLASSICISTS : It  must  not  be  inferred  that  the 
classic  influence  of  David  and  Ingres  disappeared  from  view 
with  the  coming  of  the  romanticists,  the  Fontainebleau 
landscapists,  and  the  Barbizon  painters.  On  the  contrary, 
11 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


162 

side  by  side  with  these  men,  and  opposed  to  them,  were  the 
believers  in  line  and  academic  formulas  of  the  beautiful. 
The  whole  tendency  of  academic  art  in  France  was  against 
Delacroix,  Rousseau,  and  Millet.  During  their  lives  they 
were  regarded  as  heretics  in  art  and  without  the  pale  of  the 
Academy.  Their  art,  however,  combined  with  nature  study 
and  the  realism  of  Courbet,  succeeded  in  modifying  the 
severe  classicism  of  Ingres  into  what  has  been  called  semi- 
classicism. It  consists  in  the  elevated,  heroic,  or  historical 
theme,  academic  form  well  drawn,  some  show  of  bright 
colors,  smoothness  of  brush-work,  and  precision  and  nicety 
of  detail.  In  treatment  it  attempts  the  realistic,  but  in 
spirit  it  is  usually  stilted,  cold,  unsympathetic. 

Cabanel  (1823-1889)  and  Bouguereau  (1825-)  have  both 
represented  semi-classic  art  well.  They  are  justly  ranked  as 
famous  draughtsmen  and  good  portrait-painters,  but  their 
work  always  has  about  it  the  stamp  of  the  academy  machine, 
a something  done  to  order,  knowing  and  exact,  but  lacking 
in  the  personal  element.  It  is  a weakness  of  the  academic 
method  that  it  virtually  banishes  the  individuality  of  eye 
and  hand  in  favor  of  school  formulas.  Cabanel  and  Bougue- 
reau have  painted  many  incidents  of  classic  and  historic 
story,  but  with  never  a dash  of  enthusiasm  or  a suggestion 
of  the  great  qualities  of  painting.  Their  drawing  has  been 
as  thorough  as  could  be  asked  for,  but  their  colorings  have 
been  harsh  and  their  brushes  cold  and  thin. 

G6rome  (1824-*)  is  a man  of  classic  training  and  inclina- 
tion, but  his  versatility  hardly  allows  him  to  be  classified 
anywhere.  He  was  first  a leader  of  the  New-Greeks,  paint- 
ing delicate  mythological  subjects  ; then  a historical  painter, 
showing  deaths  of  Caesar  and  the  like  ; then  an  Orientalist, 
giving  scenes  from  Cairo  and  Constantinople  ; then  a genre 
painter,  depicting  contemporary  subjects  in  the  many  lands 
through  which  he  has  travelled.  Whatever  he  has  done 
shows  semi-classic  drawing,  ethnological  and  archaeological 

* Died,  1904. 


FRENCH  PAINTING.  1^3 

knowledge,  Parisian  technic,  and  exact  detail.  His  travels 
have  not  changed  his  precise  scientific  point  of  view.  He 
is  a true  academician  at  bottom,  but  a more  versatile  and 
cultured  painter  than  either  Cabanel  or  Bouguereau.  He 
draws  well,  sometimes  uses  color  well,  and  is  an  excellent  „ 
painter  of  textures.  A man  of  great  learning  in  many  de- 
partments he  is  no  painter  to  be  sneered  at,  and  yet  not  a 


FIG.  66. — MILLET.  THE  GLEANERS.  LOUVRE. 

painter  to  make  the  pulse  beat  faster  or  to  arouse  the 
aesthetic  emotions.  His  work  is  impersonal,  objective  fact, 
showing  a brilliant  exterior  but  inwardly  devoid  of  feeling. 

Paul  Baudry  (1828-1886),  though  a disciple  of  line,  was 
not  precisely  a semi-classicist,  and  perhaps  for  that  reason 
was  superior  to  any  of  the  academic  painters  of  his  time. 
He  was  a follower  of  the  old  masters  in  Rome  more  than 
the  Ecole  des  Beaux  Arts.  His  subjects,  aside  from  many 
splendid  portraits,  were  almost  all  classical,  allegorical,  or 
mythological.  He  was  a fine  draughtsman,  and,  what  is  more 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


164 

remarkable  in  conjunction  therewith,  a fine  colorist.  He  was 
hardly  a great  originator,  and  had  not  passion,  dramatic 
force,  or  much  sentiment,  except  such  as  may  be  found  in 
his  delicate  coloring  and  rhythm  of  line.  Nevertheless  he  was 
an  artist  to  be  admired  for  his  purity  of  purpose  and  breadth 
of  accomplishment.  His  chief  work  is  to  be  seen  in  the 
Opera  at  Paris.  Puvis  de  Chavannes  (1824-*)  is  quite  a dif- 
ferent style  of  painter,  and  is  remarkable  for  fine  delicate 
tones  of  color  which  hold  their  place  well  on  wall  or  ceiling, 
and  for  a certain  grandeur  of  composition.  In  his  desire  to 
revive  the  monumental  painting  of  the  Renaissance  he  has 
met  with  much  praise  and  much  blame.  He  is  an  artist  of 
sincerity  and  learning,  and  as  a wall-painter  has  no  superior 
in  contemporary  France. 

Hebert  (1817-),  an  early  painter  of  academic  tendencies, 
and  Henner  (1829-),  fond  of  form  and  yet  a brushman  with 
an  idyllic  feeling  for  light  and  color  in  dark  surroundings, 
are  painters  who  may  come  under  the  semi-classic  group- 
ing. Lefebvre  (1834-)  is  probably  the  most  pronounced  in 
academic  methods  among  the  present  men,  a draughtsman 
of  ability. 

PORTRAIT  AND  FIGURE  PAINTERS:  Under  this  heading  may 
be  included  those  painters  who  stand  by  themselves,  showing 
no  positive  preference  for  either  the  classic  or  romantic  fol- 
lowings. Bonnat  (1833-)  has  painted  all  kinds  of  subjects — 
genre , figure,  and  historical  pieces — but  is  perhaps  best  known 
as  a portrait-painter.  He  has  done  forcible  work.  Some 
of  it  indeed  is  astonishing  in  its  realistic  modelling — the  ac- 
centuation of  light  and  shadow  often  causing  the  figures  to 
advance  unnaturally.  From  this  feature  and  from  his  de- 
tail he  has  been  known  for  years  as  a “ realist.”  His  ana- 
tomical Christ  on  the  Cross  and  mural  paintings  in  the 
Pantheon  are  examples.  As  a portrait-painter  he  is  accept- 
able, if  at  times  a little  raw  in  color.  Another  portrait- 
painter  of  celebrity  is  Carolus  Duran  (1837-).  He  is  rather 

* Died,  1898. 


FRENCH  PAINTING. 


165 

startling  at  times  in  his  portrayal  of  robes  and  draperies, 
has  a facility  of  the  brush  that  is  frequently  deceptive,  and 
in  color  is  sometimes  vivid.  He  has  had  great  success  as  a 
teacher,  and  is,  all  told,  a painter  of  high  rank.  Delaunay 
(1828-1892)  in  late  years  painted  little  besides  portraits,  and^ 
was  one  of  the  conservatives  of  French  art.  Laurens  (1838-) 
has  been  more  of  a historical  painter  than  the  others,  and  has 
dealt  largely  with  death  scenes.  He  is  often  spoken  of  as 
“ the  painter  of  the  dead,”  a man  of  sound  training  and  ex- 
cellent technical  power.  Regnault  (1843-1871)  was  a figure 
and  genre  painter  with  much  feeling  for  oriental  light  and 
color,  who  unfortunately  was  killed  in  battle  at  twenty-seven 
years  of  age.  He  was  an  artist  of  promise,  and  has  left 
several  notable  canvases.  Among  the  younger  men  who 
portray  the  historical  subject  in  an  elevated  style  mention 
should  be  made  of  Cormon  (1845-),  Benjamin-Constant 
(1845-*),  aRd  Rockegrosse.  As  painters  of  portraits  Aman- 
Jean  and  Carri&re  have  long  held  rank,  and  each  succeed- 
ing Salon  brings  new  portraitists  to  the  front. 

THE  REALISTS:  About  the  time  of  the  appearance  of  Mil- 
let, say  1848,  there  also  came  to  the  front  a man  who 
scorned  both  classicism  and  romanticism,  and  maintained 
that  the  only  model  and  subject  of  art  should  be  nature. 
This  man,  Courbet  (1819-1878),  really  gave  a third  tendency 
to  the  art  of  this  century  in  France,  and  his  influence  un- 
doubtedly had  much  to  do  with  modifying  both  the  classic 
and  romantic  tendencies.  Courbet  was  a man  of  arrogant, 
dogmatic  disposition,  and  was  quite  heartily  detested  during 
his  life,  but  that  he  was  a painter  of  great  ability  few  will 
deny.  His  theory  was  the  abolition  of  both  sentiment  and 
academic  law,  and  the  taking  of  nature  just  as  it  was,  with  all 
its  beauties  and  all  its  deformities.  This,  too,  was  his  practice 
to  a certain  extent.  His  art  is  material,  and  yet  at  times  lofty 
in  conception  even  to  the  sublime.  And  while  he  believed  in 
realism  he  did  not  believe  in  petty  detail,  but  rather  in  the 

* Died,  1902. 


ive  or  emotional  disposition.  As  a technician  he  was  coarse 
but  superbly  strong,  handling  sky,  earth,  air,  with  the  ease 
and  power  of  one  well  trained  in  his  craft.  His  subjects 
were  many — the  peasantry  of  France,  landscape,  and  the 
sea  holding  prominent  places — -and  his  influence,  though 
not  direct  because  he  had  no  pupils  of  consequence,  has 
been  most  potent  with  the  late  men. 

The  young  painter  of  to-day  who  does  things  in  a “ realis- 
tic ” wayjs  frequently  met  with  in  French  art.  L’hermitte 
(1844-),  Julien  Dupre  (1851-),  and  others  have  handled  the 
the  peasant  subject  with  skill,  after  the  Millet-Courbet 
initiative  ; and  Bastien-Lepage  (1848-1884)  excited  a good 
deal  of  admiration  in  his  lifetime  for  the  truth  and  evident 
sincerity  of  his  art.  Bastien’s  point  of  view  was  realistic 


FIG.  67. — CABANEL.  PHAEDRA.. 


l66  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


great  truths  of  nature.  These  he  saw  with  a discerning  eye 
and  portrayed  with  a masterful  brush.  He  believed  in  what 
he  saw  only,  and  had  more  the  observing  than  the  reflect- 


FRENCH  PAINTING. 


167 


enough,  but  somewhat  material.  He  never  handled  the 
large  composition  with  success,  but  iy  small  pieces  and  in 
portraits  he  was  quite  above  criticism.  His  following 
among  the  young  men  was  considerable,  and  the  so-called- 
impressionists  have  ranked  him  among  their  disciples  or 
leaders. 

PAINTERS  OF  MILITARY  SCENES,  GENRE,  ETC  : The  art  of 
Meissonier  (1815-1891),  while  extremely  realistic  in  modern 
detail,  probably  originated  from  a study  of  the  seven- 
teenth-century Dutchmen  like  Terburg  and  Metsu.  It 
does  not  portray  low  life,  but  rather  the  half  - aristocratic 
— the  scholar,  the  cavalier,  the  gentleman  of  leisure.  This 
is  done  on  a small  scale  with  microscopic  nicety,  and  really 
more  in  the  historical  than  the  genre  spirit.  Single  figures 
and  interiors  were  his  preference,  but  he  also  painted  a cycle 
of  Napoleonic  battle-pictures  with  much  force.  There  is 
little  or  no  sentiment  about  his  work — little  more  than  in  that 
of  Gerome.  His  success  lay  in  exact  technical  accomplish- 
ment. He  drew  well,  painted  well,  and  at  times  was  a su- 
perior colorist.  His  art  is  more  admired  by  the  public  than 
by  the  painters  ; but  even  the  latter  do  not  fail  to  praise  his 
skill  Qf  hand.  He  was  a great  craftsman  in  the  infinitely 
little.  As  a great  artist  his  rank  is  still  open  to  question. 

The  genre  painting  of  fashionable  life  has  been  carried  out 
by  many  followers  of  Meissonier,  whose  names  need  not  be 
mentioned  since  they  have  not  improved  upon  their  fore- 
runner. Toulmouche  (1829-),  Leloir  (1843-1884),  Vibert 
(1840-),  Bargue  (?  — 1 883),  and  others,  though  somewhat 
different  from  Meissonier,  belong  among  those  painters  of 
genre  who  love  detail,  costumes,  stories,  and  pretty  faces. 
Among  the  painters  of  military  genre  mention  should  be 
made  of  De  Neuville  (1836-1 885),  Berne-Bellecour  (1838-), 
Detaille  (1848-),  and  Aim6-Morot  (1850-),  all  of  them 
painters  of  merit. 

Quite  a different  style  of  painting — half  figure-piece  half 


i68 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


genre — is  to  be  found  in  the  work  of  Ribot  (1823-),  a strong 
painter,  remarkable  for  his  apposition  of  high  flesh  lights 
with  deep  shadows,  after  the  manner  of  Ribera,  the  Spanish 
painter.  Roybet  ( 1 840-)  is  fond  of  rich  stuffs  and  tapestries 
with  velvet-clad  characters  in  interiors,  out  of  which  he 
makes  good  color  effects.  Bonvin  (1817-1887)  and  Mettling 
have  painted  the  interior  with  small  figures,  copper-kettles, 
and  other  still-life  that  have  given  brilliancy  to  their  pict- 
ures. As  a still-life  painter  Vollon  (1 833-)  has  never  had 
a superior.  His  fruits,  flowers,  armors,  even  his  small  ma- 
rines and  harbor  pieces,  are  painted  with  one  of  the  surest 
brushes  of  this  century.  He  is  called  the  “ painter’s 
painter,”  and  is  a man  of  great  force  in  handling  color, 
and  in  large  realistic  effect.  Dantan  and  Friant  have  both 
produced  canvases  showing  figures  in  interiors. 

A number  of  excellent  genre  painters  have  been  claimed 
by  the  impressionists  as  belonging  to  their  brotherhood. 
There  is  little  to  warrant  the  claim,  except  the  adoption  to 
some  extent  of  the  modern  ideas  of . illumination  and  flat 
painting.  Dagnan-Bouveret  (1852-)  is  one  of  these  men,  a 
good  draughtsman,  and  a finished  clean  painter  who  by  his  re- 
cent use  of  high  color  finds  himself  occasionally  looked  upon 
as  an  impressionist.  As  a matter  of  fact  he  is  one  of  the 
most  conservative  of  the  moderns — a man  of  feeling  and 
imagination,  and  a fine  technician.  Fantin-Latour  (1836-)  is 
half  romantic,  half  allegorical  in  subject,  and  in  treatment 
oftentimes  designedly  vague  and  shadowy,  more  suggestive 
than  realistic.  Duez  (1843-)  and  Gervex  (1848-)  are  perhaps 
nearer  to  impressionism  in  their  works  than  the  others,  but 
they  are  not  at  all  advance  advocates  of  this  latest  phase  of 
art.  In  addition  there  are  Cottet  and  Henri  Martin. 

THE  IMPRESSIONISTS:  The  name  is  a misnomer.  Every 
painter  is  an  impressionist  in  so  far  as  he  records  his  im- 
pressions, and  all  art  is  impressionistic.  What  Manet  (1833- 
1883),  the  leader  of  the  original  movement,  meant  to  say  was 


FRENCH  PAINTING. 


169 


that  nature  should  not  be  painted  as  it  actually  is,  but  as  it 
“ impresses  ” the  painter.  He  and  his  few  followers  tried 
to  change  the  name  to  Independents,  but  the  original 
name  has  clung  to  them  and  been  mistakenly  fastened  to  a 
present  band  of  landscape-painters  who  are  seeking  effects 
of  light  and  air  and  should  be  called  luminists  if  it  is 
necessary  for  them  to  be  named  at  all.  Manet  was 
extravagant  in  method  and  disposed  toward  low  life  for  a 
subject,  which  has  always  militated  against  his  popularity  ; 


FIG.  68. — MEISSONIER.  NAPOLEON  IN  1814. 


but  he  was  a very  important  man  for  his  technical  dis- 
coveries regarding  the  relations  of  light  and  shadow,  the  flat 
appearance  of  nature,  the  exact  value  of  color  tones.  Some 
of  his  works,  like  The  Boy  with  a Sword  and  The  Toreador 


1 70 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


Dead,  are  excellent  pieces  of  painting.  The  higher  imag- 
inative qualities  of  art  Manet  made  no  great  effort  at 
attaining. 

Degas  stands  quite  by  himself,  strong  in  effects  of  mo- 
tion, especially  with  race-horses,  fine  in  color,  and  a delight- 
ful brushman  in  such  subjects  as  ballet-girls  and  scenes 
from  the  theatre.  Besnard  is  one  of  the  best  of  the  present 
men.  He  deals  with  the  figure,  and  is  usually  concerned 
with  the  problem  of  harmonizing  color  under  conflicting 
lights,  such  as  twilight  and  lamplight.  B6raud  and  Raffaelli 
are  exceedingly  clever  in  street  scenes  and  character  pieces ; 
Pissarro*  handles  the  peasantry  in  high  color;  Brown  (1829- 
1890),  the  race-horse,  and  Renoir,  the  middle  class  of  social 
life.  Caillebotte,  Roll,  Forain,  and  Miss  Cassatt,  an  Ameri- 
can, are  also  classed  with  the  impressionists. 

IMPRESSIONIST  LANDSCAPE  PAINTERS;  Of  recent  years 
there  has  been  a disposition  to  change  the  key  of  light  in 
landscape  painting,  to  get  nearer  the  truth  of  nature  in  the 
height  of  light  and  in  the  height  of  shadows.  In  doing  this 
Claude  Monet,  the  present  leader  of  the  movement,  has  done 
away  with  the  dark  brown  or  black  shadow  and  substituted 
the  light-colored  shadow,  which  is  nearer  the  actual  truth 
of  nature.  In  trying  to  raise  the  pitch  of  light  he  has  not 
been  quite  so  successful,  though  accomplishing  something. 
His  method  is  to  use  pure  prismatic  colors  on  the  principle 
that  color  is  light  in  a decomposed  form,  and  that  its  proper 
juxtaposition  on  canvas  will  recompose  into  pure  light  again. 
Hence  the  use  of  light  shadows  and  bright  colors.  The  aim 
of  these  modern  men  is  chiefly  to  gain  the  effect  of  light 
and  air.  They  do  not  apparently  care  for  subject,  detail,  or 
composition. 

At  present  their  work  is  in  the  experimental  stage,  but 
from  the  way  in  which  it  is  being  accepted  and  followed  by 
the  painters  of  to-day  we  may  be  sure  the  movement  is  of 
considerable  importance.  There  will  probably  be  a reac- 

* Died,  1903. 


FRENCH  PAINTING. 


171 

tion  in  favor  of  more  form  and  solidity  than  the  present 
men  give,  but  the  high  key  of  light  will  be  retained.  There 
are  so  many  painters  following  these  modern  methods,  not 
only  in  France  but  all  over  the  world,  that  a list  of  their 
names  would  be  impossible.  In  France  Sisley  with  Monet 
are  the  two  important  landscapists.  I11  marines  Boudin 
and  Montenard  should  be  mentioned. 

PRINCIPAL  WORKS;  The  modern  French  painters  are  seen  to  ad- 
vantage in  the  Louvre,  Luxembourg,  Pantheon,  Sorbonne,  and  the  munic- 
ipal galleries  of  France.  Also  Metropolitan  Museum  New  York,  Chicago 
Art  Institute,  Boston  Museum,  and  many  private  collections  in  France  and 
America.  Consult  for  works  in  public  or  private  hands,  Champlin  and 
Perkins,  Cyclopedia  of  Painters  and  Paintings , under  names  of  artists. 


CHAPTER  XV. 


SPANISH  PAINTING. 

Books  Recommended  : Bermudez,  Diccionario  de  las 

Bellas  Artes  en  Espaha  ; Davillier,  Memoir e de  Velasquez ; 
Davillier,  Fortuny  ; Eusebi,  Los  Differentes  Escuelas  de 
Pintura  ; Ford,  Handbook  of  Spain ; Plead,  History  of 
Spanish  and  French  Schools  of  Painting  ; Justi,  Velasquez  and 
his  Times ; Lefort,  Velasquez;  Lefort,  Francisco  Goya; 
Lefort,  Murillo  et  son  Ecole  ; Lefort,  La  Peinture  Espagnole  ; 
Palomino  de  Castro  y Velasco,  Vidas  de  los  Pintores  y Fsta- 
tuarios  Fminentes  Espaiioles;  Passavant,  Die  Christliche  Kunst 
in  Spa?iien  ; Plon,  Les  Maitres  Lt aliens  au  Service  de  la  Mai  son 
d'  Autriche  ; Stevenson,  Velasquez;  Stirling,  Annals  of  the 
Artists  of  Spain  ; Stirling,  Velasquez  and  his  Works;  Tubino, 
El  Arte  y los  Artis tas  contempo?'d7ieos  en  la  Peninsula; 
Tubino,  Murillo  ; Viardot,  Notices  sur  les  Principaux  Peintres 
de  V Espagne  ; Yriarte,  Goya , sa  Biographie , etc. 

SPANISH  ART  MOTIVES:  What  may  have  been  the  early 
art  of  Spain  we  are  at  a loss  to  conjecture.  The  reigns  of 
the  Moor,  the  Iconoclast,  and,  finally,  the  Inquisitor,  have 
left  little  that  dates  before  the  fourteenth  century.  The 
miniatures  and  sacred  relics  treasured  in  the  churches  and 
said  to  be  of  the  apostolic  period,  show  the  traces  of  a much 
later  date  and  a foreign  origin.  Even  when  we  come  down 
to  the  fifteenth  century  and  meet  with  art  produced  in 
Spain,  we  have  a following  of  Italy  or  the  Netherlands.  In 
methods  and  technic  it  was  derivative  more  than  original, 
though  almost  from  the  beginning  peculiarly  Spanish  in 
spirit. 

That  spirit  was  a dark  and  savage  one,  a something  that 


SPANISH  PAINTING. 


173 


ecclesiastical  domination,  and  done  in  form  without  ques- 
tion or  protest.  The  religious  subject  ruled.  True  enough, 
there  was  portraiture  of  nobility,  and  under  Philip  and 
Velasquez  a half-monarchical  art  of  military  scenes  and 
genre ; but  this  was  not  the  bent  of  Spanish  painting  as  a 
whole.  Even  in  late  days,  when  Velasquez  was  reflecting 
the  haughty  court,  Murillo  was  more  widely  and  nationally 


cringed  under  the  lash  of  the  Church,  bowed  before  the 
Inquisition,  and  played  the  executioner  with  the  paint- 
brush. The  bulk  of  Spanish  art  was  Church  art,  done  under 


FIG.  69. — SANCHEZ  COELLO.  CLARA  EUGENIA,  DAUGHTER  OF  PHILIP  II.  MADRID. 


174 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


reflecting  the  believing  provinces  and  the  Church  faith  of 
the  people.  It  is  safe  to  say,  in  a general  way,  that  the 
Church  was  responsible  for  Spanish  art,  and  that  religion 
was  its  chief  motive. 

There  was  no  revived  antique,  little  of  the  nude  or  the 
pagan,  little  of  consequence  in  landscape,  little,  until  Velas- 
quez’s time,  of  the  real  and  the  actual.  An  ascetic  view 
of  life,  faith,  and  the  hereafter  prevailed.  The  pietistic, 
the  fervent,  and  the  devout  were  not  so  conspicuous  as  the 
morose,  the  ghastly,  and  the  horrible.  The  saints  and 
martyrs,  the  crucifixions  and  violent  deaths,  were  eloquent 
of  the  torture-chamber.  It  was  more  ecclesiasticism  by 
blood  and  violence  than  Christianity  by  peace  and  love. 
And  Spain  welcomed  this.  For  of  all  the  children  of  the 
Church  she  was  the  most  faithful  to  rule,  crushing  out 
heresy  with  an  iron  hand,  gaining  strength  from  the 
Catholic  reaction,  and  upholding  the  Jesuits  and  the 
Inquisition. 

METHODS  OF  PAINTING : Spanish  art  worthy  of  mention 
did  not  appear  until  the  fifteenth  century.  At  that  time 
Spain  was  in  close  relations  with  the  Netherlands,  and 
Flemish  painting  was  somewhat  followed.  How  much  the 
methods  of  the  Van  Eycks  influenced  Spain  would  be  hard 
to  determine,  especially  as  these  Northern  methods  were 
mixed  with  influences  coming  from  Italy.  Finally,  the 
Italian  example  prevailed  by  reason  of  Spanish  students  in 
Italy  and  Italian  painters  in  Spain.  Florentine  line,  Vene- 
tian color,  and  Neapolitan  light-and-shade  ruled  almost 
everywhere,  and  it  was  not  until  the  time  of  Velasquez — 
the  period  just  before  the  eighteenth-century  decline — that 
distinctly  Spanish  methods,  founded  on  nature,  really  came 
forcibly  to  the  front. 

SPANISH  SCHOOLS  OF  PAINTING:  There  is  difficulty  in  clas- 
sifying these  schools  of  painting  because  our  present  knowl- 
edge of  them  is  limited.  Isolated  somewhat  from  the  rest 


SPANISH  PAINTING. 


175 


and  Badajoz.  The  Andalusian  school,  which  rose  about 
the  middle  of  the  sixteenth  century,  was  made  up  from 
the  local  schools  of  Seville,  Cordova,  and  Granada.  The 


of  Europe,  the  Spanish  painters  have  never  been  critically 
studied  as  the  Italians  have  been,  and  what  is  at  present 
known  about  the  schools  must  be  accepted  subject  to  criti- 
cal revision  hereafter. 

The  earliest  school  seems  to  have  been  made  up  from  a 
gathering  of  artists  at  Toledo,  who  limned,  carved,  and 
gilded  in  the  cathedral  ; but  this  school  was  not  of  long 
duration.  It  was  merged  into  the  Castilian  school,  which, 
after  the  building  of  Madrid,  made  its  home  in  that  capital 
and  drew  its  forces  from  the  towns  of  Toledo,  Valladolid, 


FIG.  70. — MURILLO.  ST.  ANTHONY  OF  PADUA.  BERLIN. 


iy6 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


Valencian  school,  to  the  southeast,  rose  about  the  same 
time,  and  was  finally  merged  into  the  Andalusian.  The 
Aragonese  school,  to  the  east,  was  small  and  of  no  great 
consequence,  though  existing  in  a feeble  way  to  the  end  of 
the  seventeenth  century.  The  painters  of  these  schools 
are  not  very  strongly  marked  apart  by  methods  or  school 
traditions,  and  perhaps  the  divisions  would  better  be  looked 
upon  as  more  geographical  than  otherwise.  None  of  the 
schools  really  began  before  the  sixteenth  century,  though 
there  are  names  of  artists  and  some  extant  pictures  before 
that  date,  and  with  the  seventeenth  century  all  art  in  Spain 
seems  to  have  centred  about  Madrid. 

Spanish  painting  started  into  life  concurrently  with  the 
rise  to  prominence  of  Spain  as  a political  kingdom.  What, 
if  any,  direct  effect  the  maritime  discoveries,  the  conquests 
of  Granada  and  Naples,  the  growth  of  literature,  and  the 
decline  of  Italy,  may  have  had  upon  Spanish  painting  can 
only  be  conjectured  ; but  certainly  the  sudden  advance  of 
the  nation  politically  and  socially  was  paralleled  by  the 
advance  of  its  art. 

THE  CASTILIAN  SCHOOL:  This  school  probably  had  no  so- 
called  founder.  It  was  a growth  from  early  art  traditions 
at  Toledo,  and  afterward  became  the  chief  school  of  the 
kingdom  owing  to  the  patronage  of  Philip  II.  and  Philip 
IV.  at  Madrid.  The  first  painter  of  importance  in  the 
school  seems  to  have  been  Antonio  Rincon  (1446  ?-i 500  ?). 
He  is  sometimes  spoken  of  as  the  father  of  Spanish  paint- 
ing, and  as  having  studied  in  Italy  with  Castagno  and 
Ghirlandajo,  but  there  is  little  foundation  for  either  state- 
ment. He  painted  chiefly  at  Toledo,  painted  portraits  of 
Ferdinand  and  Isabella,  and  had  some  skill  in  hard  draw- 
ing. Berruguete  (1480?- 1561)  studied  with  Michael  An- 
gelo, and  is  supposed  to  have  helped  him  in  the  Vatican. 
He  afterward  returned  to  Spain,  painted  many  altar-pieces, 
and  was  patronized  as  painter,  sculptor,  and  architect  by 


SPANISH  PAINTING. 


1 77 


Charles  V.  and  Philip  II.  He  was  probably  the  first  to 
introduce  pule  Italian  methods  into  Spain,  with  some  cold- 
ness and  dryness  of  coloring  and  handling.  Becerra 
( 1520  ?- 1 5 70)  was  born  in  Andalusia,  but  worked  in  Castile, 
and  was  a man  of  Italian  training  similar  to  Berruguete. 
He  was  an  exceptional  man,  perhaps,  in  his  use  of  mytho- 
logical  themes  and  nude  figures. 

There  is  not  a great  deal  known  about  Morales  (1509?- 
1586),  called  “the  Divine,”  except  that  he  was  allied  to  the 
Castilian  school,  and  painted  devotional  heads  of  Christ 
with  the  crown  of  thorns,  and  many  afflicted  and  weeping 
madonnas.  There  was  Florentine  drawing  in  his  work, 
great  regard  for  finish,  and  something  of  Correggio’s  soft- 
ness in  shadows  pitched  in  a browner  key.  His  sentiment 
was  rather  exaggerated.  Sanchez-Coello  (15  13?- 15  90)  was 
painter  and  courtier  to  Philip  II.,  and  achieved  reputation 
as  a portrait-painter,  though  also  doing  some  altar-pieces. 
It  is  doubtful  whether  he  ever  studied  in  Italy,  but  in 
Spain  he  was  for  a time  with  Antonio  Moro,  and  probably 
learned  from  him  something  of  rich  costumes,  ermines,  em- 
broideries, and  jewels,  for  which  his  portraits  were  remark- 
able. Navarette  (1526  ?—  1 5 79),  called  “El  Mudo  ” (the 
dumb  one),  certainly  was  in  Italy  for  something  like  twenty 
years,  and  was  there  a disciple  of  Titian,  from  whom  he 
doubtless  learned  much  of  color  and  the  free  flow  of  dra- 
peries. He  was  one  of  the  best  of  the  middle-period  paint- 
ers. Theotocopuli  ( 1 548  ?—  1 625),  called  “El  Greco”  (the 
Greek),  was  another  Venetian  - influenced  painter,  with 
enough  Spanish  originality  about  him  to  make  most  of  his 
pictures  striking  in  color  and  drawing.  Tristan  (1586-1640) 
was  his  best  follower. 

--  Velasquez  (1599-1660)  is  the  greatest  name  in  the  history 
of  Spanish  painting.  With  him  Spanish  art  took  upon  itself 
a decidedly  naturalistic  and  national  stamp.  Before  his 
time  Italy  had  been  freely  imitated ; but  though  Velasquez 

12 


i;8 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


himself  was  in  Italy  for  quite  a long  time,  and  intimately 
acquainted  with  great  Italian  art,  he  never  sefcmed  to  have 
been  led  away  from  his  own  individual  way  of  seeing  and 
doing.  He  was  a pupil  of  Herrera,  afterward  with  Pacheco, 
and  learned  much  from  Ribera  and  Tristan,  but  more  from 
a direct  study  of  nature  than  from  all  the  others.  He  was  in 


FIG.  71. — RIBERA.  ST.  AGNES.  DRESDEN. 

a broad  sense  a realist — a man  who  recorded  the  material 
and  the  actual  without  emendation  or  transposition.  He 
has  never  been  surpassed  in  giving  the  solidity  and  sub- 
stance of  form  and  the  placing  of  objects  in  atmosphere. 
And  this,  not  in  a small,  finical  way,  but  with  a breadth 
and  a nobility  of  treatment  which  are  to-day  the  despair  of 
painters.  There  was  nothing  of  the  ethereal,  the  spiritual, 


SPANISH  PAINTING, 


179 


the  pietistic,  or  the  pathetic  about  him.  He  never  for  a 
moment  left  the  firm  basis  of  reality.  Standing  upon  earth 
he  recorded  the  truths  of  the  earth,  but  in  their  largest, 
fullest,  most  universal  forms. 

Technically  his  was  a master-hand,  doing  all  things  with 
ease,  giving  exact  relations  of  colors  and  lights,  and  placing 
everything  so  perfectly  that  no  addition  or  alteration  is 
thought  of.  With  the  brush  he  was  light,  easy,  sure.  The 
surface  looks  as  though  touched  once,  no  more.  It  is 
the  perfection  of  handling  through  its  simplicity  and  cer- 
tainty, and  has  not  the  slightest  trace  of  affectation  or 
mannerism.  He  was  one  of  the  few  Spanish  painters  who 
were  enabled  to  shake  off  the  yoke  of  the  Church.  Few  of 
his  canvases  are  religious  in  subject.  Under  royal  patron- 
age he  passed  almost  all  of  his  life  in  painting  portraits  of 
the  royal  family,  ministers  of  state,  and  great  dignitaries. 
As  a portrait-painter  he  is  more  widely  known  than  as  a 
figure-painter.  Nevertheless  he  did  many  canvases  like  The 
Tapestry  Weavers  and  The  Surrender  at  Breda,  which  attest 
his  remarkable  genius  in  that  field  ; and  even  in  landscape, 
in  genre , in  animal  painting,  he  was  a very  superior  man. 
In  fact  Velasquez  is  one  of  the  few  great  painters  in  Euro- 
pean history  for  whom  there  is  nothing  but  praise.  He  was 
the  full-rounded  complete  painter,  intensely  individual  and 
self-assertive,  and  yet  in  his  art  recording  in  a broad  way 
the  Spanish  type  and  life.  He  was  the  climax  of  Spanish 
painting,  and  after  him  there  was  a rather  swift  decline,  as 
had  been  the  case  in  the  Italian  schools. 

Mazo  (i6io?-i667),  pupil  and  son-in-law  of  Velasquez,  was 
one  of  his  most  facile  imitators,  and  Carreno  de  Miranda 
(1614-1685)  was  influenced  by  Velasquez,  and  for  a time 
his  assistant.  The  Castilian  school  may  be  said  to  have 
closed  with  these  late  men  and  with  Claudio  Coello  (1635  ?- 
1693),  a painter  with  a style  founded  on  Titian  and  Rubens, 
whose  best  work  was  of  extraordinary  power.  Spanish 


i8o 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


painting  went  out  with  Spanish  power,  and  only  isolated 
men  of  small  rank  remained. 

ANDALUSIAN  SCHOOL:  This  school  came  into  existence 
about  the  middle  of  the  sixteenth  century.  Its  chief  centre 
was  at  Seville,  and  its  chief  patron  the  Church  rather  than 
the  king.  Vargas  (1502-1568)  was  probably  the  real 
founder  of  the  school,  though  De  Castro  (fl.  1454)  and  others 
preceded  him.  Vargas  was  a man  of  much  reputation  and 
ability  in  his  time,  and  introduced  Italian  methods  and  ele- 
gance into  the  Andalusian  school  after  twenty  odd  years  of 
residence  in  Italy.  He  is  said  to  have  studied  under  Perino 
del  Vaga,  and  there  is  some  sweetness  of  face  and  grace  of 
form  about  his  work  that  point  that  way,  though  his  com- 
position suggests  Correggio.  Most  of  his  frescos  have 
perished  ; some  of  his  canvases  are  still  in  existence. 

Cespedes  (1538  ?-i6o8)  is  little  known  through  extant  works, 
but  he  achieved  fame  in  many  departments  during  his  life, 
and  is  said  to  have  been  in  Italy  under  Florentine  influ- 
ence. His  coloring  was  rather  cold,  and  his  drawing  large 
and  flat.  The  best  early  painter  of  the  school  was  Roelas 
(1558  ?-i625),  the  inspirer  of  Murillo  and  the  master  of 
Zurbaran.  He  is  supposed  to  have  studied  at  Venice,  be- 
cause of  his  rich,  glowing  color.  Most  of  his  works  are 
religious  and  are  found  chiefly  at  Seville.  He  was  greatly 
patronized  by  the  Jesuits.  Pacheco  (1571-1654)  was  more 
of  a pedant  than  a painter,  a man  of  rule,  who  to-day  might 
be  written  down  an  academician.  His  work  was  dry,  and 
perhaps  the  best  reason  for  his  being  remembered  is  that 
he  was  one  of  the  masters  and  the  father-in-law  of  Velas- 
quez. His  rival,  Herrera  the  Elder  (1576  7—1656)  was  a 
stronger  man — in  fact,  the  most  original  artist  of  his  school. 
He  struck  off  by  himself  and  created  a bold  realism  with  a 
broad  brush  that  anticipated  Velasquez — in  fact,  Velasquez 
was  under  him  fot  a time. 

The  pure  Spanish  school  in  Andalusia,  as  distinct  from 


SPANISH  PAINTING. 


1 8 1 


Italian  imitation,  may  be  said  to  have  started  with  Herrera. 
It  was  further  advanced  by  another  independent  painter, 
Zurbaran  (1598-1662),  a pupil  of  Roelas.  He  was  a painter 


FIG.  72. — FORTUNY.  SPANISH  MARRIAGE. 


of  the  emaciated  monk  in  ecstasy,  and  many  other  rather 
dismal  religious  subjects  expressive  of  tortured  rapture. 
From  using  a rather  dark  shadow  he  acquired  the  name  of 
the  Spanish  Caravaggio.  He  had  a good  deal  of  Caravag- 
gio’s strength,  together  with  a depth  and  breadth  of  color 
suggestive  of  the  Venetians.  Cano  (1601-1667),  though  he 
never  was  in  • Italy,  had  the  name  of  the  Spanish  Michael 
Angelo,  probably  because  he  was  sculptor,  painter,  and  ar- 
chitect. His  painting  was  rather  sharp  in  line  and  statu- 
esque in  pose,  with  a coloring  somewhat  like  that  of  Van 
Dyck.  It  was  eclectic  rather  than  original  work. 

Murillo  (1618-1682)  is  generally  placed  at  the  head  of  the 
Andalusian  school,  as  Velasquez  at  the  head  of  the  Castilian. 
There  is  good  reason  for  it,  for  though  Murillo  was  not 
the  great  painter  he  was  sometime  supposed,  yet  he  was 


182 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


not  the  weak  man  his  modern  critics  would  make  him  out. 
A religious  painter  largely,  though  doing  some  genre  sub- 
jects like  his  beggar-boy  groups,  he  sought  for  religious 
fervor  and  found,  only  too  often,  sentimentality.  His 
madonnas  are  usually  after  the  Carlo  Dolci  pattern,  though 
never  so  excessive  in  sentiment.  This  was  not  the  case 
with  his  earlier  works,  mostly  of  humble  life,  which  were 
painted  in  rather  a hard,  positive  manner.  Later  on  he 
became  misty,  veiled  in  light  and  effeminate  in  outline, 
though  still  holding  grace.  His  color  varied  with  his  early 
and  later  styles.  It  was  usually  gay  and  a little  thin.  While 
basing  his  work  on  nature  like  Velasquez,  he  never  had  the 
supreme  poise  of  that  master,  either  mentally  or  technically  ; 
howbeit  he  was  an  excellent  painter,  who  perhaps  justly 
holds  second  place  in  Spanish  art. 

SCHOOL  OF  VALENCIA:  This  school  rose  contemporary  with 
the  Andalusian  school,  into  which  it  was  finally  merged 
after  the  importance  of  Madrid  had  been  established.  It 
was  largely  modelled  upon  Italian  painting,  as  indeed  were 
all  the  schools  of  Spain  at  the  start.  Juan  de  Joanes 
(1523  ?—  1 5 7 9)  apparently  was  its  founder,  a man  who  painted 
a good  portrait,  but  in  other  respects  was  only  a fair  imita- 
tor of  Raphael,  whom  he  had  studied  at  Rome.  A stronger 
man  was  Francisco  de  Ribalta  (1550  ?-i628),  who  was  for  a 
time  in  Italy  under  the  Caracci,  and  learned  from  them 
free  draughtsmanship  and  elaborate  composition.  He  was 
also  fond  of  Sebastiano  del  Piombo,  and  in  his  best  works 
(at  Valencia)  reflected  him.  Ribalta  gave  an  early  training 
to  Ribera  (1588-1656),  who  was  the  most  important  man  of 
this  school.  In  reality  Ribera  was  more  Italian  than  Va- 
lencian,  for  he  spent  the  greater  part  of  his  life  in  Italy, 
where  he  was  called  Lo  Spagnoletto,  and  was  greatly  influ- 
enced by  Caravaggio.  He  was  a Spaniard  in  the  horrible 
subjects  that  he  chose,  but  in  coarse  strength  of  line,  heavi- 
ness of  shadows,  harsh  handling  of  the  brush,  he  was  a true 


SPANISH  PAINTING. 


183 


Neapolitan  Darkling.  A pronounced  mannerist  he  was  no 
less  a man  of  strength,  and  even  in  his  shadow-saturated 
colors  a painter  with  the  color  instinct.  In  Italy  his  influ- 
ence in  the  time  of  the  Decadence  was  wide-spread,  and  in 
Spain  his  Italian  pupil,  Giordano,  introduced  his  methods  for 
late  imitation.  There  were  no  other  men  of  much  rank  in 
the  Valencian  school,  and,  as  has  been  said,  the  school  was 
eventually  merged  in  Andalusian  painting. 

EIGHTEENTH  AND  NINETEENTH-CENTURY  PAINTING  IN 
SPAIN : Almost  directly  after  the  passing  of  Velasquez  and 
Murillo  Spanish  art  failed.  The  eighteenth-century,  as  in 
Italy,  was  quite  barren  of  any  considerable  art  until  near  its 
close.  Then  Goya  (1746-1828)  seems  to  have  made  a partial 
restoration  of  painting.  He  was  a man  of  peculiarly  Spanish 
turn  of  mind,  fond  of  the  brutal  and  the  bloody,  picturing 
inquisition  scenes,  bull-fights,  battle  pieces,  and  revelling  in 
caricature,  sarcasm,  and  ridicule.  His  imagination  was  gro- 
tesque and  horrible,  but  as  a painter  his  art  was  based  on 
the  natural,  and  was  exceedingly  strong.  In  brush-work  he 
followed  Velasquez  ; in  a peculiar  forcing  of  contrasts  in 
light  and  dark  he  was  apparently  quite  himself,  though  pos- 
sibly influenced  by  Ribera’s  work.  His  best  work  shows  in 
his  portraits  and  etchings. 

After  Goya’s  death  Spanish  art,  such  as  it  was,  rather 
followed  France,  with  the  extravagant  classicism  of  David  as 
a model.  What  was  produced  may  be  seen  to  this  day  in 
the  Madrid  Museum.  It  does  not  call  for  mention  here. 
About  the  beginning  of  the  1860’s  Spanish  painting  made 
a new  advance  with  Mariano  Fortuny  (1838-1874).  In  his 
early  years  he  worked  at  historical  painting,  but  later  on  he 
went  to  Algiers  and  Rome,  finding  his  true  vent  in  a bright 
sparkling  painting  of  genre  subjects,  oriental  scenes,  streets, 
interiors,  single  figures,  and  the  like.  He  excelled  in  color, 
sunlight  effects,  and  particularly  in  a vivacious  facile  hand- 
ling of  the  brush.  His  work  is  brilliant,  and  in  his  late  pro- 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


184 


ductions  often  spotty  from  excessive  use  of  points  of  light 
in  high  color.  He  was  a technician  of  much  brilliancy  and 
originality,  his  work  exciting  great  admiration  in  his  day, 
and  leading  the  younger  painters  of  Spain  into  that  ornate 
handling  visible  in  their  works  at  the  present  time.  Many 
of  these  latter,  from  association  with  art  and  artists  in  Paris, 
have  adopted  French  methods,  and  hardly  show  such  a 
thing  as  Spanish  nationality.  Fortuny’s  brother-in-law, 

Madrazo  (1841-),  is  an 
example  of  a Spanish 
painter  turned  French 
in  his  methods — a facile 
and  brilliant  portrait - 
painter.  Zamacois 
(1842-1871)  died  early, 
but  with  a reputation  as 
a successful  portrayer 
of  seventeenth-century 
subjects  a little  after 
the  style  of  Meissonier 
and  not  unlike  Gerome. 
He  was  a good  colorist 
and  an  excellent  painter 
of  textures. 

The  historical  scene 
of  Mediaeval  or  Renais- 
sance times,  pageants 
and  fetes  with  rich  cos- 
tume, fine  architecture 
and  vivid  effects  of  col- 
fig.  73. — madrazo.  unmaskrd.  01*,  3.VG  characteristic  of 

a number  of  the  modern 
Spaniards — Villegas,  Pradilla,  Alvarez.  As  a general  thing 
their  canvases  are  a little  flashy,  likely  to  please  at  first 
sight  but  grow  wearisome  after  a time.  Palmaroli  has  a 


SPANISH  PAINTING. 


185 


style  that  resembles  a mixture  of  Fortuny  and  Meissonier  ; 
and  some  other  painters,  like  Luis  Jiminez  Aranda,  Sorolla, 
Zuloaga,  Roman  Ribera,  and  Domingo,  have  done  creditable 
work.  In  landscape  and  Venetian  scenes  Rico  leads  among  the 
Spaniards  with  a vivacity  and  brightness  not  always  seen 
to  good  advantage  in  his  late  canvases. 

PRINCIPAL  WORKS:  Generally  speaking,  Spanish  art  cannot  be  seen 
to  advantage  outside  of  Spain.  Both  its  ancient  and  modern  masterpieces 
are  at  Madrid,  Seville,  Toledo,  and  elsewhere.  The  Royal  Gallery  at 
Madrid  has  the  most  and  the  best  examples. 

Castilian  School — Rincon,  altar-piece  church  of  Robleda  de 
Chavilla  ; Berruguete,  altar-pieces  Saragossa,  Valladolid,  Madrid,  Toledo  ; 
Morales,  Madrid  and  Louvre  ; Sanchez-Coello,  Madrid  and  Brussels 
Mus.;  Navarette,  Escorial,  Madrid,  St.  Petersburg;  Theotocopuli, 
Cathedral  and  S.  Tome  Toledo,  Madrid  Mus.;  Velasquez,  best  works  in 
Madrid  Mus.,  Escorial,  Salamanca,  Montpensier  Gals.,  Nat.  Gal.  Lon., 
Infanta  Marguerita  Louvre,  Borro  portrait  (?)  Berlin,  Innocent  X.  Doria 
Rome;  Mazo,  landscapes  Madrid  Mus.  ; Carreno  de  Miranda,  Madrid 
Mus. ; Claudio  Coello,  Escorial,  Madrid,  Brussels,  Berlin, and  Munich  Mus. 

Andalusian  School — Vargas,  Seville  Cathedral  ; Cespedes,  Cordo- 
va Cathedral  ; Roelas,  S.  Isidoro  Cathedral,  Museum  Seville;  Pacheco, 
Madrid  Mus.;  Herrera,  Seville  Cathedral  and  Mus.  and  Archbishop’s 
Palace,  Dresden  Mus. ; Zurbaran,  Seville  Cathedral  and  Mus.  Madrid, 
Dresden,  Louvre,  Nat.  Gal.  Lon.;  Cano,  Madrid,  Seville  Mus.  and  Ca- 
thedral, Berlin,  Dresden,  Munich  ; Murillo,  best  pictures  in  Madrid  Mus. 
and  Acad,  of  S.  Fernando  Madrid,  Seville  Mus.  Hospital  and  Capuchin 
Church,  Louvre,  Nat.  Gal.  Lon.,  Dresden,  Munich,  Hermitage. 

Valencian  School— Juan  de  Joanes,  Madrid  Mus.,  Cathedral  Va- 
lencia, Hermitage;  Ribalta,  Madrid  and  Valencian  Mus.,  Hermitage; 
Ribera,  Louvre,  Nat.  Gal.  Lon.,  Dresden,  Naples,  Hermitage,  and  other 
European  museums,  chief  works  at  Madrid. 

Modern  Men  and  Their  Works — Goya,  Madrid  Mus.,  Acad,  of  S. 
Fernando,  Valencian  Cathedral  and  Mus.,  two  portraits  in  Louvre.  The 
works  of  the  contemporary  painters  are  largely  in  private  hands  where 
reference  to  them  is  of  little  use  to  the  average  student.  Thirty  Fortunys 
are  in  the  collection  of  William  H.  Stewart  in  Paris.  His  best  work,  The 
Spanish  Marriage,  belongs  to  Madame  de  Cassin,  in  Paris.  Examples  of 
Villegas,  Madrazo,  Rico,  Domingo,  and  others,  in  the  Vanderbilt  Gallery, 
Metropolitan  Mus.,  New  York;  Boston,  Chicago,  and  Philadelphia  Mus. 


CHAPTER  XVI. 


FLEMISH  PAINTING. 

Books  Recommended  : Busscher,  Recherches  sur  Ies  Pein- 
tres  Gantois  ; Crowe  and  Cavalcaselle,  Early  Flemish  Paint- 
ers; Cust,  Van  Dyck;  Dehaisnes,  DArt  dans  la  Flandre  ; 
Du  Jardin,  Dart  Flamand  ; Eisenmann,^  The  Bi'others  Van 
Eyck;  Fetis,  Les  Artistes  Beiges  a P Etranger ; Fromentin, 
Old  Masters  of  Belgium  and  Holland;  Gerrits,  Rubens  zyn 
Tyd,  etc. ; Guiffrey,  Van  Dyck;  Hasselt,  Histoire  de  Rubens; 
(Waagen’s)  Kiigler,  Handbook  of  Painting — German,  Flemish , 
and  Dutch  Schools ; Lemonnier,  Histoire  des  Arts  en  Bel- 
gique; Mantz,^  Adrien  Brouwer ; Michel,  Rubens j Michiels, 
Rubens  en  V Ecole  d' Anvers  ; Michiels,  Histoire  de  la  Peinture 
Flamande  ; Stevenson,  Rubens  ; Van  den  Branden,  Geschiedenis 
der  Antwerpsche  Schilderschool ; Van  Mander,  Le  Livre  des 
Peintres  j Waagen,  Uber  Hubert  und  Jan  Van  Eyck  ; Waagen, 
Peter  Paul  Rubens  ; Wauters,  Rogier  van  der  Weyden  ; Wau- 
ters,  La  Peinture  Flamande  ; Weale,  Hans  Memling  ( Arundel 
Soe.)  ; Weale,  Notes  sur  Jean  Van  Eyck. 

THE  FLEMISH  PEOPLE:  Individually  and  nationally  the 
Flemings  were  strugglers  against  adverse  circumstances 
from  the  beginning.  A realistic  race  with  practical  ideas, 
a people  rather  warm  of  impulse  and  free  in  habits,  they 
combined  some  German  sentiment  with  French  liveliness 
and  gayety.  The  solidarity  of  the  nation  was  not  accom- 
plished until  after  1385,  when  the  Dukes  of  Burgundy  began 
to  extend  their  power  over  the  Low  Countries.  Then  the 
Flemish  people  became  strong  enough  to  defy  both  Ger- 
many and  France,  and  wealthy  enough,  through  their  com- 


FLEMISH  PAINTING. 


187 


merce  with  Spain,  Italy,  and  France  to  encourage  art  not 
only  at  the  Ducal  court  but  in  the  churches,  and  among  the 

citizens  of  the  various  

towns. 

FLEMISH  SUBJECTS  AND 
METHODS:  As  in  all  the 
countries  of  Europe,  the 
early  Flemish  painting- 
pictured  Christian  sub- 
jects primarily.  The 
great  bulk  of  it  was 
church  altar-pieces, 
though  side  by  side  with 
this  was  an  admirable 
portraiture,  some  knowl- 
edge of  landscape,  and 
some  exposition  of  alle- 
gorical subjects.  In 
means  and  methods  it 
was  quite  original.  The 
early  history  is  lost,  but 
if  Flemish  painting  was 
beholden  to  the  painting 
of  any  other  nation,  it  was 
to  the  miniature  paint- 
ing of  France.  There  is, 
however,  no  positive  rec- 
ord of  this.  The  Flem- 
ings seem  to  have  begun 
by  themselves,  and  pict- 
ured the  life  about  them 
in  their  own  way.  They  FIG-  74. 
were  apparently  not  in- 
fluenced at  first  by  Italy.  There  were  no  antique  influences, 
no  excavated  marbles  to  copy,  no  Byzantine  traditions  left 


VAN  EYCKS.  ST.  BAVON  ALTAR-PIECE 
(WING).  BERLIN. 


1 88 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


to  follow.  At  first  their  art  was  exact  and  minute  in  detail, 
but  not  well  grasped  in  the  mass.  The  compositions  were 
huddled,  the  landscapes  pure  but  finical,  the  figures  inclined 
to  slimness,  awkwardness,  and  angularity  in  the  lines  of  form 
or  drapery,  and  uncertain  in  action.  To  offset  this  there  was 
a positive  realism  in  textures,  perspective,  color,  tone,  light, 
and  atmosphere.  The  effect  of  the  whole  was  odd  and 
strained,  but  the  effect  of  the  part  was  to  convince  one  that 
the  Flemish  painters  were  excellent  craftsmen  in  detail, 
skilled  with  the  brush,  and  shrewd  observers  of  nature  in 
a purely  picturesque  way. 

To  the  Flemish  painters  of  the  fifteenth  century  belongs, 
not  the  invention  of  oil-painting,  for  it  was  known  before 
their  time,  but  its  acceptable  application  in  picture-making. 
They  applied  oil  with  color  to  produce  brilliancy  and 
warmth  of  effect,  to  insure  firmness  and  body  in  the  work, 
and  to  carry  out  textural  effects  in  stuffs,  marbles,  metals, 
and  the  like.  So  far  as  we  know  there  never  was  much  use 
of  distemper,  or  fresco-work  upon  the  walls  of  buildings. 
The  oil  medium  came  into  vogue  when  the  miniatures  and 
illuminations  of  the  early  days  had  expanded  into  panel 
pictures.  The  size  of  the  miniature  was  increased,  but  the 
minute  method  of  finishing  was  not  laid  aside.  Some  time 
afterward  painting  with  oil  upon  canvas  was  adopted. 

SCHOOL  OF  BRUGES : Painting  in  Flanders  starts  abruptly 
with  the  fifteenth  century.  What  there  was  before  that 
time  more  than  miniatures  and  illuminations  is  not  known. 
Time  and  the  Iconoclasts  have  left  no  remains  of  conse- 
quence. Flemish  art  for  us  begins  with  Hubert  van  Eyck 
(?-i  426)  and  his  younger  brother  Jan  van  Eyck  (?-i44o). 
The  elder  brother  is  supposed  to  have  been  the  better 
painter,  because  the  most  celebrated  work  of  the  brothers — 
the  St.  Bavon  altar-piece,  parts  of  which  are  in  Ghent,  Brus- 
sels, and  Berlin — bears  the  inscription  that  Hubert  began  it 
and  Jan  finished  it.  Hubert  was  no  doubt  an  excellent 


FLEMISH  PAINTING. 


189 

painter,  but  his  pictures  are  few  and  there  is  much  discussion 
whether  he  or  Jan  painted  them.  For  historical  purposes 
Flemish  art  was  begun,  and  almost  completed,  by  Jan  van 
Eyck.  He  had  all  the  attributes  of  the  early  men,  and  was 
one  of  the  most  perfect  of  Flemish  painters.  He  painted  real 
forms  and  real  life,  gave  them  a setting  in  true  perspective 
and  light,  and  put  in  background  landscapes  with  a truthful 
if  minute  regard  for  the  facts.  His  figures  in  action  had 
some  awkwardness,  they  were  small  of  head,  slim  of  body, 
and  sometimes  stumbled  ; but  his  modelling  of  faces,  his 
rendering  of  textures  in  cloth,  metal, 
stone,  and  the  like,  his  delicate  yet  firm 
facture  were  all  rather  remarkable  for  his 
time.  None  of  this  early  Flemish  art  has 
the  grandeur  of  Italian  composition,  but 
in  realistic  detail,  in  landscape,  architect- 
ure, figure,  and  dress,  in  pathos,  sincer- 
ity, and  sentiment  it  is  unsurpassed  by 
any  fifteenth-century  art. 

Little  is  known  of  the  personal  history 
of  either  of  the  Van  Eycks.  They  left  an 
influence  and  had  many  followers,  but 
whether  these  were  direct  pupils  or  not 
is  an  open  question.  Peter  Cristus  (1400  ?- 
1472)  was  perhaps  a pupil  of  Jan,  though 
more  likely  a follower  of  his  methods  in 
color  and  general  technic.  Roger  van  der 
Weyden  (i4oo?-i464),  whether  a pupil  of 
the  Van  Eycks  or  a rival,  produced  a simi- 
lar style  of  art.  His  first  master  was  an  ob- 
scure Robert  Campin.  He  was  afterward 
at  Bruges,  and  from  there  went  to  Brussels 
and  founded  a school  of  his  own  called  the 

SCHOOL  OF  BRABANT : He  was  more  emotional  and  dra- 
matic than  Jan  van  Eyck,  giving  much  excited  action  and 


FIG.  75. — MEMLING  (?). 
ST.  LAWRENCE  (DE- 
TAIL). NAT.  GAL.  LON- 
DON. 


190 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


pathetic  expression  to  his  figures  in  scenes  from  the  passion 
of  Christ.  He  had  not  Van  Eyck’s  skill,  nor  his  detail,  nor 
his  color.  More  of  a draughtsman  than  a colorist,  he  was 
angular  in  figure  and  drapery,  but  had  honesty,  pathos,  and 
sincerity,  and  was  very  charming  in  bright  background 
landscapes.  Though  spending  some  time  in  Italy,  he  was 
never  influenced  by  Italian  art.  He  was  always  Flemish  in 
type,  subject,  and  method,  a trifle  repulsive  at  first  through 
angularity  and  emotional  exaggeration,  but  a man  to  be 
studied. 

By  Van  der  Goes  (i43o?-i482)  there  are  but  few  good  ex- 
amples, the  chief  one  being  an  altarpiece  in  the  Ufifizi  at 
Florence.  It  is  angular  in  drawing  but  full  of  character,  and 
in  beauty  of  detail  and  ornamentation  is  a remarkable  picture. 
He  probably  followed  Van  der  Weyden,  as  did  also  Justus  van 
Ghent  (last  half  of  fifteenth  century).  Contemporary  with 
these  men  Dierick  Bouts  (1410- 1475)  established  a school  at 
Haarlem.  He  was  Dutch  by  birth,  but  after  1450  settled  in 
Louvain,  and  in  his  art  belongs  to  the  Flemish  school.  He 
was  influenced  by  Van  der  Weyden,  and  shows  it  in  his  detail 
of  hands  and  melancholy  face,  though  he  differed  from  him  in 
dramatic  action  and  in  type.  His  figure  was  awkward,  his 
color  warm  and  rich,  and  in  landscape  backgrounds  he  greatly 
advanced  the  painting  of  the  time. 

Memling  (1425  ?— 1 495 ?),  one  of  the  greatest  of  the  school, 
is  another  man  about  whose  life  little  is  known.  He  was 
probably  associated  with  Van  der  Weyden  in  some  way. 
His  art  is  founded  on  the  Van  Eyck  school,  and  is  remark- 
able for  sincerity,  purity,  and  frankness  of  attitude.  As  a 
religious  painter,  he  was  perhaps  beyond  all  his  contempo- 
raries in  tenderness  and  pathos.  In  portraiture  he  was  ex- 
ceedingly strong  in  characterization,  and  in  his  figures  very 
graceful.  His  flesh  painting  was  excellent,  but  in  textures 
or  landscape  work  he  was  not  remarkable.  His  best  fol- 
lowers were  Van  der  Meire  (1 427  ?- 1474  ?)  and  Gheeraert 


FLEMISH  PAINTING. 


191 


FIG.  76. — MASSYS.  HEAD  OF 
VIRGIN.  ANTWERP. 


David  (1450  ?-i523).  The  latter  was  famous  for  the  fine, 
broad  landscapes  in  the  backgrounds  of  his  pictures,  said, 
however,  by  critics  to  have  been  painted  by  Joachim  Pati- 
nir.  He  was  realistically  horrible  in 
many  subjects,  and  though  a close 
recorder  of  detail  he  was  much  broad- 
er than  any  of  his  predecessors. 

FLEMISH  SCHOOLS  OF  THE  SIXTEENTH 
CENTURY:  In  this  century  Flemish 
painting  became  rather  widely  dif- 
fused. The  schools  of  Bruges  and 
Ghent  gave  place  to  the  schools  in 
the  large  commercial  cities  like  Ant- 
werp and  Brussels,  and  the  commer- 
cial relations  between  the  Low  Coun- 
tries and  Italy  finally  led  to  the  dis- 
sipation of  national  characteristics  in  art  and  the  imitation 
of  the  Italian  Renaissance  painters.  There  is  no  sharp 
line  of  demarcation  between  those  painters  who  clung  to 
Flemish  methods  and  those  who  adopted  Italian  methods. 
The  change  was  gradual. 

Quentin  Massys  (1460  ?-i53o)  and  Mostert  (1474-1556  ?),  a 
Dutchman  by  birth,  but,  like  Bouts,  Flemish  by  influence, 
were  among  the  last  of  the  Gothic  painters  in  Flanders,  and 
yet  they  began  the  introduction  of  Italian  features  in  their 
painting.  Massys  led  in  architectural  backgrounds,  and 
from  that  the  Italian  example  spread  to  subjects,  figures, 
methods,  until  the  indigenous  Flemish  art  became  a thing  of 
the  past.  Massys  was,  at  Antwerp,  the  most  important 
painter  of  his  day,  following  the  old  Flemish  methods  with 
many  improvements.  His  work  was  detailed,  and  yet  ex- 
ecuted with  a broader,  freer  brush  than  formerly,  and  with 
more  variety  in  color,  modelling,  expression  of  character. 
He  increased  figures  to  almost  life-size,  giving  them  greater 
importance  than  landscape  or  architecture.  The  type  was 


192 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


still  lean  and  angular,  and  often  contorted  with  emotion. 
His  Money-Changers  and  Misers  (many  of  them  painted  by 
his  son)  were  a ge?ire  of  his  own.  With  him  closed  the 
Gothic  school,  and  with  him  began  the 

ANTWERP  SCHOOL,  the  pupils  of  which  went  to  Italy,  and 
eventually  became  Italianized.  Mabuse  (1470  ?-i54i)  was 
the  first  to  go.  His  early  work  shows  the  influence  of 
Massys  and  David.  He  was  good  in  composition,  color, 
and  brush-work,  but  lacked  in  originality,  as  did  all  the 
imitators  of  Italy.  Franz  Floris  (i5i8?-i57o)  was  a man 
of  talent,  much  admired  in  his  time,  because  he  brought 
back  reminiscences  of  Michael  Angelo  to  Antwerp.  His 
influence  was  fatal  upon  his  followers,  of  whom  there  were 
many,  like  the  Franckens  and  De  Vos.  Italy  and  Roman 
methods,  models,  architecture,  subjects,  began  to  rule 
everywhere. 

From  Brussels  Barent  van  Orley  (1491  ?-i542)  left  early 
for  Italy,  and  became  essentially  Italian,  though  retaining 
some  Flemish  color.  He  painted  in  oil,  tempera,  and  for 
glass,  and  is  supposed  to  have  gained  his  brilliant  colors  by 
using  a gilt  ground.  His  early  works  remind  one  of  David. 
Cocxie  (1499-1592),  the  Flemish  Raphael,  was  but  an  indif- 
ferent imitator  of  the  Italian  Raphael.  At  Liege  the  Ro- 
manists, so  called,  began  with  Lambert  Lombard  (1505-1566), 
of  whose  work  nothing  authentic  remains  except  drawings. 
At  Bruges  Peeter  Pourbus  (1510  ?-i584)  was  about  the  last 
one  of  the  good  portrait-painters  of  the  time.  Another  ex- 
cellent portrait-painter,  a pupil  of  Scorel,  was  Antonio  Moro 
(1512  ?—  1 5 7 8 ?).  He  had  much  dignity,  force,  and  elaborate- 
ness of  costume,  and  stood  quite  by  himself.  There  were 
other  painters  of  the  time  who  were  born  or  trained  in 
Flanders,  and  yet  became  so  naturalized  in  other  countries 
that  in  their  work  they  do  not  belong  to  Flanders.  Neil- 
chatel  (1527  ?-i59o  ?),  Geldorp  (1553-1616  ?),  Calvaert  (1540  ?- 
1619),  Spranger  (1546-1627  ?),  and  others,  were  of  this  group. 


FLEMISH  PAINTING. 


193 


Among  all  the  strugglers  in  Italian  imitation  only  a few 
landscapists  held  out  for  the  Flemish  view.  Paul  Bril 
(1554-1626)  was  the  best  of  them.  He  went  to  Italy,  but 
instead  of  following  the  methods  taught  there,  he  taught 
Italians  his  own  view  of  landscape.  His  work  was  a little 
dry  and  formal,  but  graceful  in  composition,  and  good  in 
light  and  color.  The  Brueghels — there  were  three  of  them 
— also  stood  out  for  Flemish  landscape,  introducing  it 
nominally  as  a background  for  small  figures,  but  in  reality 
for  the  beauty  of  the  landscape  itself. 

SEVENTEENTH  - CENTURY  PAINTING:  This  was  the  great 
century  of  Flemish 
painting,  though  the 
painting  was  not 
entirely  Flemish  in 
method  or  thought. 

The  influence  of  It- 
aly had  done  away 
with  the  early  sim- 
plicity, purity,  and 
religious  pathos  of 
the  Van  Eycks. 

During  the  six- 
teenth century  ev- 
erything had  run  to 
bald  imitation  of 
Renaissance  meth- 
ods. Then  came  a 
new  master-genius, 

Rubens  (1577-1640), 
who  formed  a new 
art  founded  in 
method  upon  Italy, 
yet  distinctly  northern  in  character.  Rubens  chose  all  sub- 
jects  for  his  brush,  but  the  religious  altar-piece  probably 

13 


FIG.  77. — RUBENS.  PORTRAIT  OF  YOUNG  WOMAN.  HER- 
MITAGE, ST.  PETERSBURGH. 


194 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


occupied  him  as  much  as  any.  To  this  he  gave  little  of 
Gothic  sentiment,  but  everything  of  Renaissance  splendor. 
His  art  was  more  material  than  spiritual,  more  brilliant  and 
startling  in  sensuous  qualities,  such  as  line  and  color,  than 
charming  by  facial  expression  or  tender  feeling.  Some- 
thing of  the  Paolo  Veronese  cast  of  mind,  he  conceived 
things  largely,  and  painted  them  proportionately  — large 
Titanic  types,  broad  schemes  and  masses  of  color,  great 
sweeping  lines  of  beauty.  One  value  of  this  largeness  was 
its  ability  to  hold  at  a distance  upon  wall  or  altar.  Hence, 
when  seen  to-day,  close  at  hand,  in  museums,  people  are 
apt  to  think  Rubens’s  art  coarse  and  gross. 

There  is  no  prettiness  about  his  type.  It  is  not  effemi- 
nate or  sentimental,  but  rather  robust,  full  of  life  and  animal 
spirits,  full  of  blood,  bone,  and  muscle — of  majestic  dig- 
nity,  grace,  and  power,  and  glowing  with  splendor  of  color. 
In  imagination,  in  conception  of  art  purely  as  art,  and 
not  as  a mere  vehicle  to  convey  religious  or  mythological 
ideas,  in  mental  grasp  of  the  pictorial  world,  Rubens 
stands  with  Titian  and  Velasquez  in  the  very  front  rank  of 
painters.  As  a technician,  he  was  unexcelled.  A master  of 
composition,  modelling,  and  drawing,  a master  of  light,  and 
a color-harmonist  of  the  rarest  ability,  he,  in  addition,  pos- 
sessed the  most  certain,  adroit,  and  facile  hand  that  ever 
handled  a paint-brush.  Nothing  could  be  more  sure  than 
the  touch  of  Rubens,  nothing  more  easy  and  masterful.  He 
was  trained  in  both  mind  and  eye,  a genius  by  birth  and  by 
education,  a painter  who  saw  keenly,  and  was  able  to  realize 
what  he  saw  with  certainty. 

Well-born,  ennobled  by  royalty,  successful  in  both  court 
and  studio,  Rubens  lived  brilliantly  and  his  life  was  a series 
of  triumphs.  He  painted  enormous  canvases,  and  the  num- 
ber of  pictures,  altar-pieces,  mythological  decorations,  land- 
scapes, portraits  scattered  throughout  the  galleries  of  Eu- 
rope, and  attributed  to  him,  is  simply  amazing.  He  was 


FLEMISH  PAINTING. 


195 


undoubtedly  helped  in  many  of  his  canvases  by  his  pupils, 
but  the  works  painted  by  his  own  hand  make  a world  of  art 
in  themselves.  He  was  the  greatest  painter  of  the  North, 
a full-rounded,  complete  genius,  comparable  to  Titian  in  his 
universality.  His  precursors  and  masters,  Van  Noort  ( 1562- 
1641)  and  Vaenius  (1558-1629),  gave  no  strong  indication 


FIG.  78. — VAN  DYCK.  PORTRAIT  OF  CORNELIUS  VAN  DER  GEEST.  NAT.  GAL.  LONDON. 

of  the  greatness  of  Ruben’s  art,  and  his  many  pupils, 
though  echoing  his  methods,  never  rose  to  his  height  in 
mental  or  artistic  grasp. 

Van  Dyck  (1599-1641)  was  his  principal  pupil.  He  fol- 
lowed Rubens  closely  at  first,  though  in  a slighter  manner 
technically,  and  with  a cooler  coloring.  After  visiting  Italy 
he  took  up  with  the  warmth  of  Titian.  Later,  in  England, 


I 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


he  became  careless  and  less  certain.  His  rank  is  given  him 
not  for  his  figure-pieces.  They  were  not  always  successful, 
lacking  as  they  did  in  imagination  and  originality,  though 
done  with  force.  His  best  work  was  his  portraiture,  for 
which  he  became  famous,  painting  nobility  in  every  country 
of  Europe  in  which  he  visited.  At  his  best  he  was  a por- 
trait-painter of  great  power,  but  not  to  be  placed  in  the 
same  rank  with  Titian,  Rubens,  Rembrandt,  and  Velasquez. 
His  characters  are  gracefully  posed,  and  appear  to  be  aris- 
tocratic. There  is  a noble  distinction  about  them,  and  yet 
even  this  has  the  feeling  of  being  somewhat  affected.  The 
serene  complacency  of  his  lords  and  ladies  finally  became 
almost  a mannerism  with  him,  though  never  a disagreeable 
one.  He  died  early,  a painter  of  mark,  but  not  the  greatest 
portrait-painter  of  the  world,  as  is  sometimes  said  of  him. 

There  were  a number  of  Rubens’s  pupils,  like  Diepenbeeck 
( i 596-1675),  who  learned  from  their  master  a certain  brush 
facility,  but  were  not  sufficiently  original  to  make  deep  im- 
pressions. When  Rubens  died  the  best  painter  left  in  Bel- 
gium was  Jordaens  (1593-1678).  He  was  a pupil  of  Van 
Noort,  but  submitted  to  the  Rubens  influence  and  followed 
in  Rubens’s  style,  though  more  florid  in  coloring  and  grosser 
in  types.  He  painted  all  sorts  of  subjects,  but  was  seen  at 
his  best  in  mythological  scenes  with  groups  of  drunken 
satyrs  and  bacchants,  surrounded  by  a close-placed  land- 
scape. He  was  the  most  independent  and  original  of  the 
followers,  of  whom  there  was  a host.  Crayer  (1582-1669), 
Janssens  (1575-1632),  Zegers  (1591-165  1),  Rombouts  (1 597— 
1 637),  were  the  prominent  ones.  They  all  took  an  influ- 
ence more  or  less  pronounced  from  Rubens.  Cornelius 
de  Vos  (1585-1651)  was  a more  independent  man — a real- 
istic portrait-painter  of  much  ability.  Snyders  (1579- 
1657),  and  Fyt  (1609?- 1661),  devoted  their  brushes  to  the 
painting  of  still-life,  game,  fruits,  flowers,  landscape — Sny- 
ders often  in  collaboration  with  Rubens  himself. 


FLEMISH  PAINTING. 


97 


Living  at  the  same  time  with  these  half-Italianized  paint- 
ers, and  continuing  later  in  the  century,  there  was  another 
group  of  painters  in  the  Low  Countries  who  were  emphat- 


FIG.  79. — TENIERS  THE  YOUNGER.  PRODIGAL  SON.  LOUVRE. 

ically  of  the  soil,  believing  in  themselves  and  their  own 
country  and  picturing  scenes  from  commonplace  life  in  a 
manner  quite  their  own.  These  were  the  “Little  Masters,” 
the  ge?ire  painters,  of  whom  there  was  even  a stronger  rep- 
resentation appearing  contemporaneously  in  Holland.  In 
Belgium  there  were  not  so  many  nor  such  talented  men,  but 
some  of  them  were  very  interesting  in  their  work  as  in 
their  subjects.  Teniers  the  Younger  (1610-1690)  was  among 
the  first  of  them  to  picture  peasant,  burgher,  alewife,  and 
nobleman  in  all  scenes  and  places.  Nothing  escaped  him  as 
a subject,  and  yet  his  best  work  was  shown  in  the  handling 
of  low  life  in  taverns.  There  is  coarse  wit  in  his  work,  but 


198 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


it  is  atoned  for  by  good  color  and  easy  handling.  He  was 
influenced  by  Rubens,  though  decidedly  different  from  him 
in  many  respects.  Brouwer  (i6o6?-i638)  has  often  been 
catalogued  with  the  Holland  school,  but  he  really  belongs 
with  Teniers,  in  Belgium.  He  died  early,  but  left  a number 
of  pictures  remarkable  for  their  fine  “fat”  quality  and  their 
beautiful  color.  He  was  not  a man  of  Italian  imagina- 
tion, but  a painter  of  low  life,  with  coarse  humor  and  not 
too  much  good  taste,  yet  a superb  technician  and  vastly  be- 
yond many  of  his  little  Dutch  contemporaries  at  the  North. 
Teniers  and  Brouwer  led  a school  and  had  many  followers. 

In  a slightly  different  vein  was  Gonzales  Coques  (1618-1684), 
who  is  generally  seen  to  advantage  in  pictures  of  interiors 
with  family  groups.  In  subject  he  was  more  refined  than 
the  other  genre  painters,  and  was  influenced  to  some  extent 
by  Van  Dyck.  As  a colorist  he  held  rank,  and  his  portraiture 
(rarely  seen)  was  excellent.  At  this  time  there  were  also 
many  painters  of  landscape,  marine,  battles,  still-life — in 
fact  Belgium  was  alive  with  painters — but  none  of  them  was 
sufficiently  great  to  call  for  individual  mention.  Most  of 
them  were  followers  of  either  Holland  or  Italy,  and  the  gist 
of  their  work  will  be  spoken  of  hereafter  under  Dutch  paint- 
ing. 

EIGHTEENTH-CENTTJRY  PAINTING  IN  BELGIUM:  Decline  had 
set  in  before  the  seventeenth  century  ended.  Belgium  was 
torn  by  wars,  her  commerce  flagged,  her  art-spirit  seemed 
burned  out.  A long  line  of  petty  painters  followed  whose 
works  call  for  silence.  One  man  alone  seemed  to  stand 
out  like  a star  by  comparison  with  his  contemporaries,  Ver- 
hagen  (1728-1811),  a portrait-painter  of  talent. 

NINETEENTH-CENTURY  PAINTING  IN  BELGIUM:  During  this 
century  Belgium  has  been  so  closely  related  to  France  that 
the  influence  of  the  larger  country  has  been  quite  apparent 
upon  the  art  of  the  smaller.  In  1816  David,  the  leader  of 
the  French  classic  school,  sent  into  exile  by  the  Restoration, 


FLEMISH  PAINTING. 


I99 


settled  at  Brussels,  and  immediately  drew  around  him  many 
pupils.  His  influence  was  felt  at  once,  and  Francois  Navez 
(1787-1869)  was  the  chief  one  among  his  pupils  to  establish 
the  revived  classic  art  in  Belgium.  In  1830,  with  Belgian 
independence  and  almost  concurrently  with  the  romantic 
movement  in  France,  there  began  a romantic  movement  in 
Belgium  with  Wappers  (1803-1874).  His  art  was  founded 
substantially  on  Rubens  ; but,  like  the  Paris  romanticists, 
he  chose  the  dramatic  subject  of  the  times  and  treated  it 
more  for  color  than  for  line.  He  drew  a number  of  follow- 
ers to  himself,  but  the  movement  was  not  more  lasting  than 
in  France. 

Wiertz  (1806-1865),  whose  collection  of  works  is  to  be 
seen  in  Brussels,  was  a partial  exposition  of  romanticism 
mixed  with  a what-not  of  eccentricity  entirely  his  own. 
Later  on  came  a comparatively  new  man,  Louis  Gallait 
(1810-?),  who  held  in  Brussels  substantially  the  same  posi- 
tion that  Delaroche  did  in  Paris.  His  art  was  eclectic  and 
never  strong,  though  he  had  many  pupils  at  Brussels,  and 
started  there  a rivalry  to  Wappers  at  Antwerp.  Leys  (1815 
-1869)  holds  a rather  unique  position  in  Belgian  art  by 
reason  of  his  affectation.  He  at  first  followed  Pieter  de 
Hooghe  and  other  early  painters.  Then,  after  a study  of 
the  old  German  painters  like  Cranach,  he  developed  an 
archaic  style,  producing  a Gothic  quaintness  of  line  and 
composition,  mingled  with  old  Flemish  coloring.  The  result 
was  something  popular,  but  not  original  or  far-reaching, 
though  technically  well  done.  His  chief  pupil  was  Alma 
Tadema  (1836-),  alive  to-day  in  London,  and  belonging  to 
no  school  in  particular.  He  is  a technician  of  ability,  man- 
nered in  composition  and  subject,  and  somewhat  perfunc- 
tory in  execution.  His  work  is  very  popular  with  those  who 
enjoy  minute  detail  and  smooth  texture-painting. 

In  1851  the  influence  of  the  French  realism  of  Courbet 
began  to  be  felt  at  Brussels,  and  since  then  Belgian  art  has 


200 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 

followed  closely  the  art  movements  at  Paris.  Men  like 
Alfred  Stevens  (1828-),  a pupil  of  Navez,  are  really  more 
French  than  Belgian.  Stevens  is  one  of  the  best  of  the 
moderns,  a painter  of  power  in  fashionable  or  high-life 
genre , and  a colorist  of  the  first  rank  in  modern  art.  Among 
the  recent  painters  but  a few  can  be  mentioned.  Willems 


FIG.  80. — ALFRED  STEVENS.  ON  THE  BEACH. 


(1823-),  a weak  painter  of  fashionable  genre;  Verboeckho- 
ven  (1799-1881),  a vastly  over-estimated  animal  painter; 
Clays  (1819-),  an  excellent  marine  painter;  Boulanger,  a 
landscapist  ; Wauters  (1846-),  a history,  and  portrait- 
painter  ; Jan  van  Beers,  a clever  genre  painter ; and  Eobie, 
a painter  of  flowers. 


FLEMISH  PAINTING. 


201 


PRINCIPAL  WORKS:— Hubert  van  Eyck,  Adoration  of  the  Lamb 
(with  Jan  van  Eyck)  St.  Bavon  Ghent  (wings  at  Brussels  and  Berlin  sup- 
posed to  be  by  Jan,  the  rest  by  Hubert)  ; Jan  van  Eyck,  as  above,  also 
Arnolfini  portraits  Nat.  Gal.  Lon.,  Virgin  and  Donor  Louvre,  Madonna 
Staedel  Mus.,  Man  with  Pinks  Berlin,  Triumph  of  Church  Madrid;  Van 
der  Weyden,  a number  of  pictures  in  Brussels  and  Antwerp  Mus.,  also 
at  Staedel  Mus.,  Berlin,  Munich,  Vienna ; Cristus,  Berlin,  Staedel  Mus., 
Hermitage,  Madrid;  Justus  van  Ghent,  Last  Supper  Urbino  Gal.; 
Bouts,  St.  Peter  Louvain,  Munich,  Berlin,  Brussels,  Vienna  ; Memling, 
Brussels  Mus.  and  Bruges  Acad.,  and  Hospital  Antwerp,  Turin,  Uffizi, 
Munich,  Vienna  ; Van  der  Meire,  triptych  St.  Bavon  Ghent  ; Ghaeraert 
David,  Bruges,  Berlin,  Rouen,  Munich. 

Massys,  Brussels,  Antwerp,  Berlin,  St.  Petersburg  ; best  works  Deposi- 
tion in  Antwerp  Gal.  and  Merchant  and  Wife  Louvre  ; Mostert,  altar- 
piece  Notre  Dame  Bruges  ; Mabuse,  Madonnas  Palermo,  Milan  Cathe- 
dral, Prague,  other  works  Vienna,  Berlin,  Munich,  Antwerp;  Floris, 
Antwerp,  Amsterdam,  Brussels,  Berlin,  Munich,  Vienna;  Barent  van 
Orley,  altar-pieces  Church  of  the  Saviour  Antwerp,  and  Brussels  Mus.; 
Cocxie,  Antwerp,  Brussels,  and  Madrid  Mus.;  Pourbus,  Bruges,  Brus- 
sels, Vienna  Mus.;  Moro,  portraits  Madrid,  Vienna,  Hague,  Brussels, 
Cassel,  Louvre,  St.  Petersburg  Mus.;  Bril,  landscapes  Madrid,  Louvre, 
Dresden,  Berlin  Mus.;  the  landscapes  of  the  three  Breughels  are  to  be 
seen  in  most  of  the  museums  of  Europe,  especially  at  Munich,  Dresden, 
and  Madrid. 

Rubens,  many  works,  93  in  Munich,  35  in  Dresden,  15  at  Cassel,  16 
at  Berlin,  14  in  London,  90  in  Vienna,  66  in  Madrid,  54  in  Paris,  63  at 
St.  Petersburg  (as  given  by  Wauters),  best  works  at  Antwerp,  Vienna, 
Munich,  and  Madrid  ; Van  Noort,  Antwerp,  Brussels  Mus.,  Ghent  and 
Antwerp  Cathedrals;  Van  Dyck,  Windsor  Castle,  Nat.  Gal.  Lon.,  41  in 
Munich,  19  in  Dresden,  15  in  Cassel,  13  in  Berlin,  67  in  Vienna,  21  in 
Madrid,  24  in  Paris,  and  38  in  St.  Petersburg  (Wauters),  best  examples  in 
Vienna,  Louvre,  Nat.  Gal.  Lon. ; and  Madrid,  good  example  in  Met. 
Mus.  N.  Y.;  Diepenbeeck,  Antwerp  Churches  and  Mus.,  Berlin,  Vi- 
enna, Munich,  Frankfort  ; Jordaens,  Brussels,  Antwerp,  Munich,  Vi- 
enna, Cassel,  Madrid,  Paris;  Crayer,  Brussels,  Munich,  Vienna;  Jans- 
sens, Antwerp  Mus.,  St.  Bavon  Ghent,  Brussels  and  Cologne  Mus.; 
Zegers,  Cathedral  Ghent,  Notre  Dame  Bruges,  Antwerp  Mus.;  Rom- 
bouts,  Mus.  and  Cathedral  Ghent,  Antwerp  Mus.,  Beguin  Convent 
Mechlin,  Hospital  of  St.  John  Bruges;  De  Vos,  Cathedral  and  Mus. 
Antwerp,  Munich,  Oldenburg,  Berlin  Mus.;  Snyders,  Munich,  Dresden, 
Vienna,  Madrid,  Paris,  St.  Petersburg ; Fyt,  Munich,  Dresden,  Cassel, 


202 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


Beilin,  Vienna,  Madrid,  Paris;  Teniers  the  Younger,  29  pictures  in 
Munich,  24  in  Dresden,  8 in  Berlin,  19  in  Nat.  Gal.  Lon.,  33  in  Vienna, 
52  in  Madrid,  34  in  Louvre,  40  in  St.  Petersburg  (Wauters);  Brauwer, 
19  in  Munich,  6 in  Dresden,  4 in  Berlin,  5 in  Paris,  5 in  St.  Petersburgh 
(Wauters);  Coques,  Nat.  Gal.  Lon.,  Amsterdam,  Berlin,  Munich  Mus. 

Verhagen,  Antwerp,  Brussels,  Ghent,  and  Vienna  Mus.;  Navez, 
Ghent,  Antwerp,  and  Amsterdam  Mus.,  Nat.  Gal.  Berlin;  Wappers, 
Amsterdam,  Brussels,  Versailles  Mus.;  Wiertz,  in  Wiertz  Gal.  Brussels; 
Gallait,  Liege,  Versailles,  Tournay,  Brussels,  Nat.  Gal.  Berlin  ; Leys, 
Amsterdam  Mus.,  New  Pinacothek  Munich,  Brussels,  Nat.  Gal.  Berlin, 
Antwerp  Mus.  and  City  Hall ; Alfred  Stevens,  Marseilles,  Brussels, 
frescos  Royal  Pal.  Brussels  ; Willems,  Brussels  Mus.  and  Foder  Mus. 
Amsterdam,  Met.  Mus.  N.  Y. ; Verboeckhoven,  Amsterdam,  Foder,  Nat. 
Gal.  Berlin,  New  Pinacothek,  Brussels,  Ghent,  Met.  Mus.  N.  Y.;  Clays, 
Ghent  Mus.;  Wauters,  Brussels,  Liege  Mus.;  Van  Beers,  Burial  of 
Charles  the  Good  Amsterdam  Mus. 


CHAPTER  XVII. 


DUTCH  PAINTING. 

Books  Recommended  : As  before  Fromentin,  (Waagen’s) 
Kiigler  ; Amand-Durand,  CEuvre  de  Rembrandt ; Archief  voor 
Nederlandsche  Kunst -geschiedenis ; Blanc,  CEavre  de  Rem- 
brandt ; Bode,  Franz  Hals  und  seine  Schule  j Bode,  Studien 
zur  Geschichte  der  Hollandischen  Malerei ; Bode,  Adriaan  van 
Ostade ; Burger  (Th.  Thore),  Les  Musees  de  la  Hollande  ; 
Havard,  La  Peinture  Hollandaise ; Michel,  Rembrandt ; 
Michel,  Gerard  Terburg  et  sa  Famille  ; Mantz,  Adrien  Brou- 
wer ; Rooses,  Dutch  Painters  of  the  Nineteenth  Century; 
Schmidt,  Das  Leben  des  Malers  Adriaen  Brouwer ; Van  der 
Willigen,  Les  Artistes  de  Harlem ; Van  Mander,  Leven  der 
Nederlandsche  en  Hoogduitsche  Schilders  ; Vosmaer,  Rembrandt , 
sa  Vie  et  ses  CEuvres ; Westrheene,  Jan  Steen , Etude  sur 
l* Art  en  Hollande  ; Van  Dyke,  Old  Dutch  and  Flemish  Masters . 

THE  DUTCH  PEOPLE  AND  THEIR  ART:  Though  Holland  pro- 
duced a somewhat  different  quality  of  art  from  Flanders 
and  Belgium,  yet  in  many  respects  the  people  at  the  north 
were  not  very  different  from  those  at  the  south  of  the 
Netherlands.  They  were  perhaps  less  versatile,  less  vola- 
tile, less  like  the  French  and  more  like  the  Germans.  Fond 
of  homely  joys  and  the  quiet  peace  of  town  and  domestic  life, 
the  Dutch  were  matter-of-fact  in  all  things,  sturdy,  honest, 
coarse  at  times,  sufficient  unto  themselves,  and  caring 
little  for  what  other  people  did.  Just  so  with  their  paint- 
ers. They  were  realistic  at  times  to  grotesqueness.  Little 
troubled  with  fine  poetic  frenzies  they  painted  their  own 
lives  in  street,  town-hall,  tavern,  and  kitchen,  conscious  that 
it  was  good  because  true  to  themselves. 


204 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


At  first  Dutch  art  was  influenced,  even  confounded,  with 
thaf  of  Flanders.  The  Van  Eycks  led  the  way,  and  paint- 
ers like  Bouts  and  others,  though  Dutch  by  birth,  became 
Flemish  by  adoption  in  their  art  at  least.  When  the  Flem- 
ish painters  fell  to  copying  Italy  some  of  the  Dutch  fol- 
lowed them,  but  with  no  great  enthusiasm.  Suddenly,  at 
the  beginning  of  the  seventeenth  century,  when  Holland 
had  gained  political  independence,  Dutch  art  struck  off  by 
itself,  became  original,  became  famous.  It  pictured  native 
life  with  verve,  skill,  keeness  of  insight,  and  fine  pictorial 
view.  Limited  it  was;  it  never  soared  like  Italian  art, 
never  became  universal  or  world-embracing.  It  was  dis- 
tinct, individual,  national,  something  that  spoke  for  Hol- 
land, but  little  beyond  it. 

In  subject  there  were  few  historical  canvases  such  as  the 
Italians  and  French  produced.  The  nearest  approach  to 
them  were  the  paintings  of  shooting  companies,  or  groups 
of  burghers  and  syndics,  and  these  were  merely  elaborations 
and  enlargements  of  the  portrait  which  the  Dutch  loved 
best  of  all.  As  a whole  their  subjects  were  single  figures 
or  small  groups  in  interiors,  quiet  scenes,  family  confer- 
ences, smokers,  card-players,  drinkers,  landscapes,  still-life, 
architectural  pieces.  When  they  undertook  the  large  can- 
vas with  many  figures,  they  were  often  unsatisfactory. 
Even  Rembrandt  was  so.  The  chief  medium  was  oil,  used 
upon  panel  or  canvas.  Fresco  was  probably  used  in  the 
early  days,  but  the  climate  was  too  damp  for  it  and  it  was 
abandoned.  It  was  perhaps  the  dampness  of  the  northern 
climate  that  led  to  the  adaptation  of  the  oil  medium,  some- 
thing the  Van  Eycks  are  credited  with  inaugurating. 

THE  EARLY  PAINTING:  The  early  work  has,  for  the  great 
part,  perished  through  time  and  the  fierceness  with  which 
the  Iconoclastic  warfare  was  waged.  That  which  remains 
to-day  is  closely  allied  in  method  and  style  to  Flemish 
painting  under  the  Van  Eycks.  Ouwater  is  one  of  the 


DUTCH  PAINTING. 


205 


earliest  names  that  appears,  and  perhaps  for  that  reason  he 
has  been  called  the  founder  of  the  school.  He  was  re- 
marked in  his  time  for  the  excellent  painting  of  background 
landscapes  ; but 
there  is  little  au- 
thentic by  him 
left  to  us  from 
which  we  may 
form  an  opinion.* 

Geertjen  van  St. 

Jan  (about  1475) 
was  evidently  a 
pupil  of  his,  and 
from  him  there 
are  two  wings  of 
an  altar  in  the 
Vienna  Gallery, 
supposed  to  be 
genuine.  Bouts 
and  Mostert  have 
been  spoken  of 
under  the  Flemish 
school.  Bosch 
(i46o?-i5i6)  was 
a man  of  some 
individuality  who  produced  fantastic  purgatories  that  were 
popular  in  their  time  and  are  known  to-day  through 
engravings.  Engelbrechsten  (1468-1533)  was  Dutch  by 
birth  and  in  his  art,  and  yet  probably  got  his  inspiration 
from  the  Van  Eyck  school.  The  works  attributed  to  him 
are  doubtful,  though  two  in  the  Leyden  Gallery  seem  to 
be  authentic.  He  was  the  master  of  Lucas  van  Leyden 
(1494-1533),  the  leading  artist  of  the  early  period.  Lu- 
cas van  Leyden  was  a personal  friend  of  Albrecht  Diirer, 
the  German  painter,  and  in  his  art  he  was  not  unlike 

* A Raising  of  Lazarus  is  in  the  Berlin  Gallery. 


20  6 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


him.  A man  with  a singularly  lean  type,  a little  awkward  in 
composition,  brilliant  in  color,  and  warm  in  tone,  he  was,  de- 
spite his  archaic-looking  work,  an  artist  of  much  ability  and 
originality.  At  first  he  was  inclined  toward  Flemish  methods, 
with  an  exaggerated  realism  in  facial  expression.  In  his  mid- 
dle period  he  was  distinctly  Dutch,  but  in  his  later  days 
he  came  under  Italian  influence,  and  with  a weakening  effect 
upon  his  art.  Taking  his  work  as  a whole,  it  was  the 
strongest  of  all  the  early  Dutch  painters. 

SIXTEENTH  CENTURY : This  century  was  a period  of  Italian 
imitation,  probably  superinduced  by  the  action  of  the  Flem- 
ings at  Antwerp.  The  movement  was  somewhat  like  the 
Flemish  one,  but  not  so  extensive  or  so  productive.  There 
was  hardly  a painter  of  rank  in  Holland  during  the  whole 
century.  Scorel  (1495-1562)  was  the  leader,  and  he  prob- 
ably got  his  first  liking  for  Italian  art  through  Mabuse  at 
Antwerp.  He  afterward  went  to  Italy,  studied  Raphael  and 
Michael  Angelo,  and  returned  to  Utrecht  to  open  a school 
and  introduce  Italian  art  into  Holland.  A large  number  of 
pupils  followed  him,  but  their  work  was  lacking  in  true 
originality.  Heemskerck  (1498-1574)  and  Cornells  van 
Haarlem  (1562-1638),  with  Steenwyck  (1 550  ?-i  604),  were 
some  of  the  more  important  men  of  the  century,  but  none 
of  them  was  above  a common  average. 

SEVENTEENTH  CENTURY : Beginning  with  the  first  quarter 
of  this  century  came  the  great  art  of  the  Dutch  people, 
founded  on  themselves  and  rooted  in  their  native  character. 
Italian  methods  were  abandoned,  and  the  Dutch  told  the 
story  of  their  own  lives  in  their  own  manner,  with  truth, 
vigor,  and  skill.  There  were  so  many  painters  in  Holland 
during  this  period  that  it  will  be  necessary  to  divide  them 
into  groups  and  mention  only  the  prominent  names. 

PORTRAIT  AND  FIGURE  PAINTERS : The  real  inaugurators 
of  Dutch  portraiture  were  Mierevelt,  Hals,  Ravesteyn,  and 
De  Keyser.  Mierevelt  (1567-1641)  was  one  of  the  earliest, 


DUTCH  PAINTING. 


207 


a prolific  painter,  fond  of  the  aristocratic  sitter,  and  in- 
dulging in  a great  deal  of  elegance  in  his  accessories  of 
dress  and  the  like.  He  had  a slight,  smooth  brush,  much 
detail,  and  a profusion  of  color.  Quite  the  reverse  of  him 
was  Franz  Hals  (1  584  ?-i  666),  one  of  the  most  remarkable 
painters  of  portraits  with  which  history  acquaints  us.  In 
giving  the  sense  of  life  and  personal  physical  presence,  he 
was  unexcelled  by  any  one.  What  he  saw  he  could  portray 
with  the  most  telling  reality.  In  drawing  and  modelling  he 
was  usually  good  ; in  coloring  he  was  excellent,  though  in 
his  late  work  sombre  ; in  brush-handling  he  was  one  of  the 
great  masters.  Strong,  virile,  yet  easy  and  facile,  he  seemed 
to  produce  without  effort.  His  brush  was  very  broad  in  its 
sweep,  very  sure,  very  true.  Occasionally  in  his  late  paint- 
ing facility  ran  to  the  ineffectual,  but  usually  he  was  cer- 
tainty itself.  His  best  work  was  in  portraiture,  and  the 
most  important  of  this  is  to  be  seen  at  Haarlem,  where  he 
died  after  a rather  careless  life.  As  a painter,  pure  and 
simple,  he  is  almost  to  be  ranked  beside  Velasquez;  as  a 
poet,  a thinker,  a man  of  lofty  imagination,  his  work  gives 
us  little  enlightenment  except  in  so  far  as  it  shows  a fine 
feeling  for  masses  of  color  and  problems  of  light.  Though 
excellent  portrait-painters,  Ravesteyn  (1572?-!  657)  and 
De  Keyser  ( 1 596  ?- 1 679)  do  not  provoke  enthusiasm.  They 
were  quiet,  conservative,  dignified,  painting  civic  guards 
and  societies  with  a knowing  brush  and  lively  color,  giving 
the  truth  of  physiognomy,  but  not  with  that  verve  of  the 
artist  so  conspicuous  in  Hals,  nor  with  that  unity  of  the 
group  so  essential  in  the  making  of  a picture. 

The  next  man  in  chronological  order  is  Rembrandt  ( 1 607?- 
1669),  the  greatest  painter  in  Dutch  art.  He  was  a pupil  of 
Swanenburch  and  Lastman,  but  his  great  knowledge  of  nat- 
ure and  his  craft  came  largely  from  the  direct  study  of  the 
model.  Settled  at  Amsterdam,  he  quickly  rose  to  fame,  had 
a large  following  of  pupils,  and  his  influence  was  felt 


208 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


through  all  Dutch  painting.  The  portrait  was  emphatically 
his  strongest  work.  The  many-figured  group  he  was  not 
always  successful  in  composing  or  lighting.  His  method  of 
work  rather  fitted  him  for  the  portrait  and  unfitted  him  for 
the  large  historical  piece.  He  built  up  the  importance  of 
certain  features  by  dragging  down  all  other  features.  This 


FIG.  82. — REMBRANDT.  HEAD  OF  WOMAN.  NAT.  GAL.  LONDON. 


was  largely  shown  in  his  handling  of  illumination.  Strong 
in  a few  high  lights  on  cheek,  chin,  or  white  linen,  the  rest 
of  the  picture  was  submerged  in  shadow,  under  which  color 
was  unmercifully  sacrificed.  This  was  not  the  best  method 
for  a large,  many-figured  piece,  but  was  singularly  well 
suited  to  the  portrait.  It  produced  strength  by  contrast. 
u Forced  ” it  was  undoubtedly,  and  not  always  true  to  nat* 


DUTCH  PAINTING. 


209 


ure,  yet  nevertheless  most  potent  in  Rembrandt’s  hands. 
He  was  an  arbitrary  though  perfect  master  of  light-and- 
shade,  and  unusually  effective  in  luminous  and  transparent 
shadows.  In  color  he  was  again  arbitrary  but  forcible  and 
harmonious.  In  brush-work  he  was  at  times  labored,  but 
almost  always  effective. 

Mentally  he  was  a man  keen  to  observe,  assimilate,  and 
express  his  impressions  in  a few  simple  truths.  His  con- 
ception was  localized  with  his  own  people  and  time  (he 
never  built  up  the  imaginary  or  followed  Italy),  and  yet 
into  types  taken  from  the  streets  and  shops  of  Amsterdam 
he  infused  the  very  largest  humanity  through  his  inherent 
sympathy  with  man.  Dramatic,  even  tragic,  he  was  ; yet 
this  was  not  so  apparent  in  vehement  action  as  in  passion- 
ate expression.  He  had  a powerful  way  of  striking  uni- 
versal truths  through  the  human  face,  the  turned  head, 
bent  body,  or  outstretched  hand.  His  people  have  char- 
acter, dignity,  and  a pervading  feeling  that  they  are  the 
great  types  of  the  Dutch  race — people  of  substantial  phy- 
sique, slow  in  thought  and  impulse,  yet  capable  of  feeling, 
comprehending,  enjoying,  suffering. 

His  landscapes,  again,  were  a synthesis  of  all  landscapes, 
a grouping  of  the  great  truths  of  light,  air,  shadow,  space. 
Whatever  he  turned  his  hand  to  was  treated  with  that 
breadth  of  view  that  overlooked  the  little  and  grasped  the 
great.  He  painted  many  subjects.  His  earliest  work  dates 
from  1627,  and  is  a little  hard  and  sharp  in  detail  and  cold 
in  coloring.  After  1654  he  grew  broader  in  handling  and 
warmer  in  tone,  running  to  golden  browns,  and,  toward  the 
end  of  his  career,  to  rather  hot  tones.  His  life  was  em- 
bittered by  many  misfortunes,  but  these  never  seem  to 
have  affected  his  art  except  to  deepen  it.  He  painted  on 
to  the  last,  convinced  that  his  own  view  was  the  true  one, 
and  producing  works  that  rank  second  to  none  in  the  his- 
tory of  painting. 

14 


210 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


Rembrandt’s  influence  upon  Dutch  art  was  far-reaching, 
and  appeared  immediately  in  the  works  of  his  many  pupils. 
They  all  followed  his  methods  of  handling  light-and-shade, 
but  no  one  of  them  ever  equalled  him,  though  they  pro- 
duced work  of  much  merit.  Bol  (1611-1680)  was  chiefly  a 
portrait-painter,  with  a pervading  yellow  tone  and  some 
pallor  of  flesh-coloring — a man  of  ability  who  mistakenly 
followed  Rubens  in  the  latter  part  of  his  life.  Flinck 
(1615-1660)  at  one  time  followed  Rembrandt  so  closely  that 
his  work  has  passed  for  that  of  the  master ; but  latterly  he, 
too,  came  under  Flemish  influence.  Next  to  Eeckhout  he 
was  probably  the  nearest  to  Rembrandt  in  methods  of  all 
the  pupils.  Eeckhout  (1621-1674)  was  really  a Rembrandt 
imitator,  but  his  hand  was  weak  and  his  color  hot.  Maes 
(1632-1693)  was  the  most  successful  manager  of  light  after 
the  school  formula,  and  succeeded  very  well  with  warmth 
and  richness  of  color,  especially  with  his  reds.  The  other 
Rembrandt  pupils  and  followers  were  Poorter  (fl.  1635- 
1643),  Victoors  (i62o?-i672?),  Koninck  (1619-1688),  Fabri- 
tius  (1624-1654),  and  Backer  (i6o8?-i65i). 

Van  der  Heist  (i6i2?-i67o)  stands  apart  from  this 
school,  and  seems  to  have  followed  more  the  portrait  style 
of  De  Keyser.  He  was  a realistic,  precise  painter,  with 
much  excellence  of  modelling  in  head  and  hands,  and  with 
fine  carriage  and  dignity  in  the  figure.  In  composition  he 
hardly  held  his  characters  in  group  owing  to  a sacrifice  of 
values,  and  in  color  he  was  often  “ spotty,”  and  lacking  in 
the  unity  of  mass. 

THE  GENRE  PAINTERS:  This  heading  embraces  those  who 
may  be  called  the  “ Little  Dutchmen,”  because  of  the  small 
scale  of  their  pictures  and  their  genre  subjects.  Gerard  Dou 
(1613-1675)  is  indicative  of  the  class  without  fully  repre- 
senting it.  He  was  a pupil  of  Rembrandt,  but  his  work 
gave  little  report  of  this.  It  was  smaller,  more  delicate  in 
detail,  more  petty  in  conception.  He  was  a man  great  in 


DUTCH  PAINTING. 


With  little  delicacy  in  choice  of  subject  he  had  much  deli- 
cacy in  color,  taste  in  arrangement,  and  skill  in  handling. 
His  brush  was  precise  but  not  finical. 


2 1 1 

little  things,  one  who  wasted  strength  on  the  minutiae  of 
dress,  or  table-cloth,  or  the  texture  of  furniture  without 
grasping  the  mass  or  color  significance  of  the  whole  scene. 
There  was  infinite  detail  about  his  work,  and  that  gave 
it  popularity  ; but  as  art  it  held,  and  holds  to-day,  little 
higher  place  than  the  work  of  Metsu  (1630-1667),  Van 
Mieris  (1635-1681),  Netscher  (1639-1684),  or  Schalcken 
(1643-1706),  all  of  whom  produced  the  interior  piece  with 
figures  elaborate  in  accidental  effects.  Van  Ostade  (1610- 
1685),  though  dealing  with  the  small  canvas,  and  portraying 
peasant  life  with  perhaps  unnecessary  coarseness,  was  a 
much  stronger  painter  than  the  men  just  mentioned.  He 
was  the  favorite  pupil  of  Hals  and  the  master  of  Jan  Steen. 


FIG.  83.— J.  VAN  RUISDAEL.  LANDSCAPE. 


212 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


By  far  the  best  painter  among  all  the  “Little  Dutchmen  ” 
was  Terburg  (1617  ?- 1 681),  a painter  of  interiors,  small 
portraits,  conversation  pictures,  and  the  like.  Though  of 
diminutive  scale  his  work  has  the  largeness  of  view  charac- 
teristic of  genius,  and  the  skilled  technic  of  a thorough 
craftsman.  Terburg  was  a travelled  man,  visiting  Italy, 
where  he  studied  Titian,  returning  to  Holland  to  study 
Rembrandt,  finally  at  Madrid  studying  Velasquez.  He  was 
a painter  of  much  culture,  and  the  key-note  of  his  art  is  re- 
finement. Quiet  and  dignified  he  carried  taste  through  all 
branches  of  his  art.  I11  subject  he  was  rather  elevated,  in 
color  subdued  with  broken  tones,  in  composition  simple,  in 
brush-work  sure,  vivacious,  and  yet  unobtrusive.  Selection 
in  his  characters  was  followed  by  reserve  in  using  them. 
Detail  was  not  very  apparent  A few  people  with  some 
accessory  objects  were  all  that  he  required  to  make  a pict- 
ure. Perhaps  his  best  qualities  appear  in  a number  of 
small  portraits  remarkable  for  their  distinction  and  aristo- 
cratic grace. 

Steen  (1626  ?—  1 679)  was  almost  the  opposite  of  Terburg, 
a man  of  sarcastic  flings  and  coarse  humor  who  satirized 
his  own  time  with  little  reserve.  He  developed  under  Hals 
and  Van  Ostade,  favoring  the  latter  in  his  interiors,  family 
scenes,  and  drunken  debauches.  He  was  a master  of  phys- 
iognomy, and  depicted  it  with  rare  if  rather  unpleasant 
truth.  If  he  had  little  refinement  in  his  themes  he  certainly 
handled  them  as  a painter  with  delicacy.  At  his  best  his 
many  figured  groups  were  exceedingly  well  composed,  his 
color  was  of  good  quality  (with  a fondness  for  yellows),  and 
his  brush  was  as  limpid  and  graceful  as  though  painting 
angels  instead  of  Dutch  boors.  He  was  really  one  of  the 
fine  brushmen  of  Holland,  a man  greatly  admired  by  Sir 
Joshua  Reynolds,  and  many  an  artist  since  ; but  not  a man 
of  high  intellectual  pitch  as  compared  with  Terburg,  for  in- 
stance. 


DUTCH  PAINTING. 


213 


Pieter  de  Hooghe  ( 1 632  ?- 1 68  1 ) was  a painter  of  purely 
pictorial  effects,  beginning  and  ending  a picture  in  a scheme 
of  color,  atmosphere,  clever  composition,  and  above  all  the 
play  of  light-and-shade.  He  was  one  of  the  early  masters 
of  full  sunlight,  painting  it  falling  across  a court-yard  or 
streaming  through  a window  with  marvellous  truth  and 
poetry.  His  subjects  were  commonplace  enough.  An  in- 
terior with  a figure  or  two  in  the  middle  distance,  and  a 
passage-way  leading  into  a lighted  background  were  suffi- 
cient for  him.  These  formed  a skeleton  which  he  clothed 
in  a half-tone  shadow,  pierced  with  warm  yellow  light,  en- 
riched with  rare  colors,  usually  garnet  reds  and  deep  yel- 
lows repeated  in  the  different  planes,  and  surrounded  with 
a subtle  pervading  atmosphere.  As  a brushman  he  was 
easy  but  not  distinguished,  and  often  his  drawing  was  not 
correct ; but  in  the  placing  of  color  masses  and  in  com- 
posing by  color  and  light  he  was  a master  of  the  first  rank. 
Little  is  known  about  his  life.  He  probably  formed  him- 
self on  Fabritius  or  Rembrandt  at  second-hand,  but  little 
trace  of  the  latter  is  apparent  in  his  work.  He  seems  not 
to  have  achieved  much  fame  until  late  years,  and  then 
rather  in  England  than  in  his  own  country. 

Jan  van  der  Meer  of  Delft  (1632-1675),  one  of  the  most 
charming  of  all  the  genre  painters,  was  allied  to  De  Hooghe 
in  his  pictorial  point  of  view  and  interior  subjects.  Unfort- 
unately there  is  little  left  to  us  of  this  master,  but  the  few 
extant  examples  serve  to  show  him  a painter  of  rare  qualities 
in  light,  in  color,  and  in  atmosphere.  He  was  a remarkable 
man  for  his  handling  of  blues,  reds,  and  yellows  ; and  in 
the  tonic  relations  of  a picture  he  was  a master  second  to  no 
one.  Fabritius  is  supposed  to  have  influenced  him. 

THE  LANDSCAPE  PAINTERS:  The  painters  of  the  Nether- 
lands were  probably  the  first,  beginning  with  Bril,  to  paint 
landscape  for  its  own  sake,  and  as  a picture  motive  in 
itself.  Before  them  it  had  been  used  as  a background  for 


214 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


the  figure,  and  was  so  used  by  many  of  the  Dutchmen 
themselves.  It  has  been  said  that  these  landscape-painters 
were  also  the  first  ones  to  paint  landscape  realistically,  but 


FIG.  84. — HOBBEMA.  THE  WATER-WHEEL.  AMSTERDAM  MUS. 

that  is  true  only  in  part.  They  studied  natural  forms,  as 
did,  indeed,  Bellini  in  the  Venetian  school  ; they  learned 
something  of  perspective,  air,  tree  anatomy,  and  the  appear- 
ance of  water  ; but  no  Dutch  painter  of  landscape  in  the 
seventeenth  century  grasped  the  full  color  of  Holland  or 
painted  its  many  varied  lights.  They  indulged  in  a meagre 
conventional  palette  of  grays,  greens,  and  browns,  whereas 
Holland  is  full  of  brilliant  hues. 

Van  Goyen  (1596-1656)  was  one  of  the  earliest  of  the 
seventeenth-century  landscapists.  In  subject  he  was  fond 
of  the  Dutch  bays,  harbors,  rivers,  and  canals  with  ship- 
ping, windmills,  and  houses.  His  sky  line  was  generally 
given  low,  his  water  silvery,  and  his  sky  misty  and  lumi- 


DUTCH  PAINTING. 


215 


nous  with  bursts  of  white  light.  In  color  he  was  subdued, 
and  in  perspective  quite  cunning  at  times.  Salomon  van 
Ruisdael  (i6oo?-i6yo)  was  his  follower,  if  not  his  pupil. 
He  had  the  same  sobriety  of  color  as  his  master,  and  was  a 
mannered  and  prosaic  painter  in  details,  such  as  leaves  and 
tree-branches.  In  composition  he  was  good,  but  his  art 
had  only  a slight  basis  upon  reality,  though  it  looks  to  be 
realistic  at  first  sight.  He  had  a formula  for  doing  land- 
scape which  he  varied  only  in  a slight  way,  and  this  con- 
ventionality ran  through  all  his  work.  Molyn  (1600  ?— 1661) 
was  a painter  who  showed  limited  truth  to  nature  in  flat  and 
hilly  landscapes,  transparent  skies,  and  warm  coloring. 
His  extant  works  are  few  in  number.  Wynants  (1615?- 
1679?)  was  more  of  a realist  in  natural  appearance  than 
any  of  the  others,  a man  who  evidently  studied  directly 
from  nature  in  details  of  vegetation,  plants,  trees,  roads, 
grasses,  and  the  like.  Most  of  the  figures  and  animals  in 
his  landscapes  were  painted  by  other  hands.  He  himself 
was  a pure  landscape-painter,  excelling  in  light  and  aerial 
perspective,  but  not  remarkable  in  color.  Van  der  Neer 
(1603-1677)  and  Everdingen  (1621?- 1675)  were  two  other 
contemporary  painters  of  merit. 

The  best  landscapist  following  the  first  men  of  the  cen- 
tury was  Jacob  van  Ruisdael  (1625  ?-i682),  the  nephew  of 
Salomon  van  Ruisdael.  He  is  put  down,  with  perhaps  un- 
necessary emphasis,  as  the  greatest  landscape-painter  of 
the  Dutch  school.  He  was  undoubtedly  the  equal  of  any 
of  his  time,  though  not  so  near  to  nature,  perhaps,  as  Hob- 
bema. He  was  a man  of  imagination,  who  at  first  pictured 
the  Dutch  country  about  Haarlem,  and  afterward  took  up 
with  the  romantic  landscape  of  Van  Everdingen.  This 
landscape  bears  a resemblance  to  the  Norwegian  country, 
abounding,  as  it  does,  in  mountains,  heavy  dark  woods, 
and  rushing  torrents.  There  is  considerable  poetry  in  its 
composition,  its  gloomy  skies,  and  darkened  lights.  It  is 


21 6 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


mournful,  suggestive,  wild,  usually  unpeopled.  There  was 
much  of  the  methodical  in  its  putting  together,  and  in 
color  it  was  cold,  and  limited  to  a few  tones.  Many  of 
Ruisdael’s  works  have  darkened  through  time.  Little  is 
known  about  the  painter’s  life  except  that  he  was  not  ap- 
preciated in  his  own  time  and  died  in  the  almshouse. 

Hobbema  (i638  ?-i709)  was  probably  the  pupil  of  Jacob 
van  Ruisdael,  and  ranks  with  him,  if  not  above  him,  in 
seventeenth-century  landscape  painting.  Ruisdael  hardly 
ever  painted  sunlight,  whereas  Hobbema  rather  affected  it  in 
quiet  wood-scenes  or  roadways  with  little  pools  of  water  and 
a mill.  He  was  a freer  man  with  the  brush  than  Ruisdael, 
and  knew  more  about  the  natural  appearance  of  trees,  skies, 
and  lights  ; but,  like  his  master,  his  view  of  nature  found 
no  favor  in  his  own  land.  Most  of  his  work  is  in  England, 
where  it  had  not  a little  to  do  with  influencing  such  painters 
as  Constable  and  others  at  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth 
century. 

LANDSCAPE  with  CATTLE:  Here  we  meet  with  Wouverman 
(1619-1668),  a painter  of  horses,  cavalry,  battles,  and  riding 
parties  placed  in  landscape.  His  landscape  is  bright  and 
his  horses  are  spirited  in  action.  There  is  some  mannerism 
apparent  in  his  reiterated  concentration  of  light  on  a white 
horse,  and  some  repetition  in  his  canvases,  of  which  there 
are  many ; but  on  the  whole  he  was  an  interesting,  if 
smooth  and  neat  painter.  Paul  Potter  (1625-1654)  hardly 
merited  his  great  repute.  He  was  a harsh,  exact  recorder 
of  facts,  often  tin-like  or  woodeny  in  his  cattle,  and  not  in 
any  way  remarkable  in  his  landscapes,  least  of  all  in  their 
composition.  The  Young  Bull  at  the  Hague  is  an  ambi- 
tious piece  of  drawing,  but  is  not  successful  in  color,  light, 
or  ensemble.  It  is  a brittle  work  all  through,  and  not 
nearly  so  good  as  some  smaller  things  in  the  National 
Gallery  London,  and  in  the  Louvre.  Adrien  van  de  Velde 
(T  635  ?-i672)  was  short-lived,  like  Potter,  but  managed  to  do 


DUTCH  PAINTING. 


217 


a prodigious  amount  of  work,  showing  cattle  and  figures  in 
landscape  with  much  technical  ability  and  good  feeling. 
He  was  particularly  good  in  composition  and  the  subtle 
gradation  of  neutral  tints.  A little  of  the  Italian  influence 
appeared  in  his  work,  and  with  the  men  who  came  with  him 
and  after  him  the  Italian  imitation  became  very  pronounced. 
Aelbert  Cuyp  (1620-1691)  was  a many-sided  painter,  adopt- 
ing at  various  times  different  styles,  but  was  enough  of  a 


FIG.  85. — ISRAELS.  ALONE  IN  THE  WORLD. 


genius  to  be  himself  always.  He  is  best  known  to  us, 
perhaps,  by  his  yellow  sunlight  effects  along  rivers,  with 
cattle  in  the  foreground,  though  he  painted  still-life,  and 
even  portraits  and  marines.  In  composing  a group  he  was 
knowing,  recording  natural  effects  with  power  ; in  light 
and  atmosphere  he  was  one  of  the  best  of  his  time,  and  in 
texture  and  color  refined,  and  frequently  brilliant.  Both. 
(1610-1650  ?),  Berchem  (1620-1683),  Du  Jardin  (1622  ?— 1 6 7 8), 
followed  the  Italian  tradition  of  Claude  Lorrain,  producing 
semi-classic  landscapes,  never  very  convincing  in  their 


218 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


originality.  Van  der  Heyden  (i  637-1  7 12),  should  be  men- 
tioned as  an  excellent,  if  minute,  painter  of  architecture 
with  remarkable  atmospheric  effects. 

MARINE  AND  STILL-LIFE  PAINTERS : There  were  two  pre- 
eminent marine  painters  in  this  seventeenth  century, 
Willem  van  de  Velde  (1633-1707)  and  Backhuisen  (1 631— 
1708).  The  sea  was  not  an  unusual  subject  with  the  Dutch 
landscapists.  Van  Goyen,  Simon  de  Vlieger  (1601  ?-i66o  ?), 
Cuyp,  Willem  van  de  Velde  the  Elder  (16  n ?— 1 693),  all 
employed  it  ; but  it  was  Van  de  Velde  the  Younger  who 
really  stood  at  the  head  of  the  marine  painters.  He  knew 
his  subject  thoroughly,  having  been  well  grounded  in  it  by 
his  father  and  De  Vlieger,  so  that  the  painting  of  the  Dutch 
fleets  and  harbors  was  a part  of  his  nature.  He  preferred 
the  quiet  haven  to  the  open  sea.  Smooth  water,  calm  skies, 
silvery  light,  and  boats  lying  listlessly  at  anchor  with 
drooping  sails,  made  up  his  usual  subject.  The  color  was 
almost  always  in  a.  key  of  silver  and  gray,  very  charming  in 
its  harmony  and  serenity,  but  a little  thin.  Both  he  and  his 
father  went  to  England  and  entered  the  service  of  the 
English  king,  and  thereafter  did  English  fleets  rather  than 
Dutch  ones.  Backhuisen  was  quite  the  reverse  of  Van  de 
Velde  in  preferring  the  tempest  to  the  calm  of  the  sea.  He 
also  used  more  brilliant  and  varied  colors,  but  he  was  not 
so  happy  in  harmony  as  Van  de  Velde.  There  was  often 
dryness  in  his  handling,  and  something  too  much  of  the 
theatrical  in  his  wrecks  on  rocky  shores. 

The  still-life  painters  of  Holland  were  all  of  them  rather 
petty  in  their  emphasis  of  details  such  as  figures  on  table- 
covers,  water-drops  on  flowers,  and  fur  on  rabbits.  It  was 
labored  work  with  little  of  the  art  spirit  about  it,  except  as 
the  composition  showed  good  masses.  A number  of  these 
painters  gained  celebrity  in  their  day  by  their  microscopic 
labor  over  fruits,  flowers,  and  the  like,  but  they  have  no 
great  rank  at  the  present  time.  Jan  van  Heem  (1600?- 


DUTCH  PAINTING. 


219 


1684  ?)  was  perhaps  the  best  painter  of  flowers  among  them. 
Van  Huysum  (1682-1749)  succeeded  with  the  same  subject 
beyond  his  deserts.  Hondecoeter  (1636-1695)  was  a unique 
painter  of  poultry;  Weenix  (1640-1719)  and  Van  Aelst 
(1620-1679),  of  dead  game;  Kalf  (1 630  ?-i  693),  of  pots, 
pans,  dishes,  and  vegetables. 

EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY : This  was  a period  of  decadence 

during  which  there  was  no  originality  worth  speaking  about 
among  the  Dutch  painters.  Realism  in  minute  features 
was  carried  to  the  extreme,  and  imitation  of  the  early  men 
took  the  place  of  invention.  Everything  was  prettified  and 
elaborated  until  there  was  a porcelain  smoothness  and  a 
photographic  exactness  inconsistent  with  true  art.  Adriaan 
van  der  Werff  (1659-1722),  and  Philip  van  Dyck  (1683- 
1 753)  with  their  “ideal”  inanities  are  typical  of  the  cen- 
tury’s art.  There  was  nothing  to  commend  it.  The  lowest 
point  of  affectation  had  been  reached. 

NINETEENTH  CENTURY : The  Dutch  painters,  unlike  the 
Belgians,  have  almost  always  been  true  to  their  own  tra- 
ditions and  their  own  country.  Even  in  decadence  the 
most  of  them  feebly  followed  their  own  painters  rather  than 
those  of  Italy  and  France,  and  in  the  early  nineteenth  cen- 
tury they  were  not  affected  by  the  French  classicism  of 
David.  Later  on  there  came  into  vogue  an  art  that  had 
some  affinity  with  that  of  Millet  and  Courbet  in  France.  It 
was  the  Dutch  version  of  modern  sentiment  about  the  labor- 
ing classes,  founded  on  the  modern  life  of  Holland,  yet  in 
reality  a continuation  of  the  style  or  genre  practised  by  the 
early  Dutchmen.  Israels  (1824-)  is  a revival  or  a survival 
of  Rembrandtesque  methods  with  a sentiment  and  feeling 
akin  to  the  French  Millet.  He  deals  almost  exclusively 
with  peasant  life,  showing  fisher-folk  and  the  like  in  their 
cottage  interiors,  at  the  table,  or  before  the  fire,  with  good 
effects  of  light,  atmosphere,  and  much  pathos.  Technically 
he  is  rather  labored  and  heavy  in  handling,  but  usually 


2 20 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


effective  with  sombre  color  in  giving  the  unity  of  a scene. 
Artz  (1837-1890)  considered  himself  in  measure  a follower 
of  Israels,  though  he  never  studied  under  him.  His  pict- 
ures in  subject  are  like  those  of  Israels,  but  without  the 
depth  of  the  latter.  Blommers  (1845-)  is  another  peasant 
painter  who  follows  Israels  at  a distance,  and  Neuhuys 
(1844-)  shows  a similar  style  of  work.  Bosboom  (1817- 
1891)  excelled  in  representing  interiors,  showing,  with  much 
pictorial  effect,  the  light,  color,  shadow,  and  feeling  of  space 
and  air  in  large  cathedrals. 

The  brothers  Maris  have  made  a distinct  impression  on 
modern  Dutch  art,  and,  strange  enough,  each  in  a different 
way  from  the  others.  James  Maris  (1837-)  studied  at  Paris, 
and  is  remarkable  for  fine,  vigorous  views  of  canals,  towns, 
and  landscapes.  He  is  broad  in  handling,  rather  bleak  in 
coloring,  and  excels  in  fine  luminous  skies  and  voyaging 
clouds.  Matthew  Maris  (1835-),  Parisian  trained  like  his 


FIG.  86.  — MAUVE.  SHEEP. 

brother,  lives  in  London,  where  little  is  seen  of  his  work. 
He  paints  for  himself  and  his  friends,  and  is  rather  melan- 
choly and  mystical  in  his  art.  He  is  a recorder  of  visions 


DUTCH  PAINTING. 


221 


and  dreams  rather  than  the  substantial  things  of  the  earth, 
but  always  with  richness  of  color  and  a fine  decorative  feel- 
ing. Willem  Maris  (1839-),  sometimes  called  the  “Silvery 
Maris,”  is  a portrayer  of  cattle  and  landscape  in  warm  sun- 
light and  haze  with  a charm  of  color  and  tone  often  sug- 
gestive of  Corot.  Jongkind  (1 819-1891)  stands  by  himself, 
Mesdag  (1831-)  is  a fine  painter  of  marines  and  sea-shores, 
and  Mauve  (1838-1888),  a cattle  and  sheep  painter,  with  nice 
sentiment  and  tonality,  whose  renown  is  just  now  somewhat 
disproportionate  to  his  artistic  ability.  In  addition  there  are 
some  other  artists  of  promise,  such  as  Kever,  Poggenbeek, 
Bastert. 

EXTANT  WORKS  : Generally  speaking  the  best  examples  of  the  Dutch 
schools  are  still  to  be  seen  in  the  local  museums  of  Holland,  especially  the 
Amsterdam  and  Hague  Mus.;  Bosch,  Madrid,  Antwerp,  Brussels  Mus.; 
Lucas  van  Leyden,  Antwerp,  Leyden,  Munich  Mus.;  Scorel,  Amster- 
dam, Rotterdam,  Haarlem  Mus.;  Heemskerck,  Haarlem,  Hague,  Berlin, 
Cassel,  Dresden  ; Steenwyck,  Amsterdam,  Hague,  Brussels  ; Cornells 
van  Haarlem,  Amsterdam,  Haarlem,  Brunswick. 

Portrait  and  Figure  Painters — Mierevelt,  Hague,  Amsterdam, 
Rotterdam,  Brunswick,  Dresden,  Copenhagen  ; Hals,  best  works  to  be 
seen  at  Haarlem,  others  at  Amsterdam,  Brussels,  Hague,  Berlin,  Cassel, 
Louvre,  Nat.  Gal.  Lon.,  Met.  Mus.  New  York,  Art  Institute  Chicago ; 
Rembrandt,  Amsterdam,  Hermitage,  Louvre,  Munich,  Berlin,  Dresden, 
Madrid,  London  ; Bol,  Amsterdam,  Hague,  Dresden,  Louvre  ; Flinck, 
Amsterdam,  Hague,  Berlin  ; Eeckhout,  Amsterdam,  Brunswick,  Ber- 
lin, Munich  ; Maes,  Nat.  Gal.  Lon.,  Rotterdam,  Amsterdam,  Hague, 
Brussels  ; Poorter,  Amsterdam,  Brussels,  Dresden  ; Victoors,  Am- 
sterdam, Copenhagen,  Brunswick,  Dresden  ; Fabritius,  Rotterdam, 
Amsterdam,  Berlin  ; Van  der  Heist,  best  works  at  Amsterdam  Mus. 

Genre  Painters — Examples  of  Dou,  Metsu,  VanMieris,  Netscher, 
Schalcken,  Van  Ostade,  are  to  be  seen  in  almost  all  the  galleries  of 
Europe,  especially  the  Dutch,  Belgian,  German,  and  French  galleries; 
Terburg,  Amsterdam,  Louvre,  Dresden,  Berlin  (fine  portraits)  ; Steen, 
Amsterdam,  Louvre,  Rotterdam,  Hague,  Berlin,  Cassel,  Dresden,  Vienna; 
De  Hooghe,  Nat.  Gal.  Lon.,  Louvre,  Amsterdam,  Hermitage  ; Van  der 
Meer  of  Delft,  Louvre,  Hague,  Amsterdam,  Berlin,  Dresden,  Met.  Mus. 
New  York. 


222 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


Landscape  Painters — Van  Goyen,  Amsterdam,  Fitz-William  Mus 
Cambridge,  Louvre,  Brussels,  Cassel,  Dresden,  Berlin  ; Salomon  van 
Ruisdael,  Amsterdam,  Brussels,  Berlin,  Dresden,  Munich  ; Van  der 
Neer,  Nat.  Gal.  Lon.,  Louvre,  Brussels,  Amsterdam,  Berlin,  Dresden  ; 
Everdingen,  Amsterdam,  Berlin,  Louvre,  Brunswick,  Dresden,  Munich, 
Frankfort;  Jacob  van  Ruisdael,  Nat.  Gal.  Lon.,  Louvre,  Amsterdam, 
Berlin,  Dresden  ; Hobbema,  best  works  in  England,  Nat.  Gal.  Lon., 
Amsterdam,  Rotterdam,  Dresden  ; Wouvermans,  many  works,  best  at 
Amsterdam,  Cassel,  Louvre  ; Potter,  Amsterdam,  Hague,  Louvre,  Nat. 
Gal.  Lon.;  Van  de  Velde,  Amsterdam,  Hague,  Cassel,  Dresden,  Frank- 
fort, Munich,  Louvre ; Cuyp,  Amsterdam,  Nat.  Gal.  Lon.,  Louvre, 
Munich,  Dresden  ; examples  of  Both,  Berchem,  Du  Jardin,  and  Van 
der  Heyden,  in  almost  all  of  the  Dutch  and  German  galleries,  besides  the 
Louvre  and  Nat.  Gal.  Lon. 

Marine  Painters— Willem  van  de  Velde  Elder  and  Younger, 
Backhuisen,  Vlieger,  together  with  the  flower  and  fruit  painters  like 
Huysum,  Hondecoeter,  Weenix,  have  all  been  prolific  workers,  and 
almost  every  European  gallery,  especially  those  at  London,  Amsterdam, 
and  in  Germany,  have  examples  of  their  works  ; Van  der  Werff  and 
Philip  van  Dyck  are  seen  at  their  best  at  Dresden. 

The  best  works  of  the  modern  men  are  in  private  collections,  many  in  the 
United  States,  some  examples  of  them  in  the  Amsterdam  and  Hague  Mu- 
seums. Also  some  examples  of  the  old  Dutch  masters  in  New  York 
Hist.  Society  Library,  Yale  School  of  Fine  Arts,  Met.  Mus.  New  York, 
Boston  Mus.,  and  Chicago  Institute. 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 


GERMAN  PAINTING. 

Books  Recommended  : Colvin,  A.  Diirer , his  Teachers , his 
Rivals,  and  his  Scholars ; Eye,  Leben  und  Werke  Albrecht 
Diirers;  Forster,  Peter  von  Cornelius ; Forster,  Geschichte  der 
Deutschen  Kunst ; Keane,  Early  Teutonic , Italian , and  French 
Painters ; Kiigler,  Handbook  to  German  and  Netherland 
Schools , trans.  by  Crowe  ; Merlo,  Die  Meister  der  altkolnischer 
Malerschule ; Pecht,  Deutsche  Kunstler  des  Neunzehnten 
Jahrhunderts ; Reber,  Geschichte  der  neueren  Deutschen 
Kunst;  Riegel,  Deutsche  Kiinststudien  ; Rosenberg,  Die  Ber- 
liner Malerschule ; Rosenberg,  Sebald  und  Barthel  Beham; 
Rumohr,  Hans  Holbein  der  Jiingere  ; Sandrart,  Deutsche 
Akademie  der  Edlen  Ban  - Bild-  und  Malerey-Kunste  ; Schu- 
chardt,  Lucas  Cranach's  Leben;  Thausig,  Albert  Diirer, 
His  Life  and  Works  ; Waagen,  Kiinstwerke  und  Kunstler  in 
Deutschland ; E.  aus’m  Weerth,  Wandmalereien  des  Mittelal- 
ters  in  den  Rheinlanden  ; Wessely,  Adolph  Menzel ; Woltmann, 
Holbein  and  his  Time  ; Woltmann,  Geschichte  der  Deutschen 
Kunst  im  Elsass  ; W urtzbach,  Martin  Schongauer. 

EARLY  GERMAN  PAINTING:  The  Teutonic  lands,  like  almost 
all  of  the  countries  of  Europe,  received  their  first  art  im- 
pulse from  Christianity  through  Italy.  The  centre  of  the 
faith  was  at  Rome,  and  from  there  the  influence  in  art  spread 
west  and  north,  and  in  each  land  it  was  modified  by  local 
peculiarities  of  type  and  temperament.  In  Germany,  even 
in  the  early  days,  though  Christianity  was  the  theme  of  early 
illuminations,  miniatures,  and  the  like,  and  though  there 
was  a traditional  form  reaching  back  to  Italy  and  Byzan- 
tium, yet  under  it  was  the  Teutonic  type — the  material, 
awkward,  rather  coarse  Germanic  point  of  view.  The  wish 


224 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


unknown.  In  wall-painting  a poor  quality  of  work  was  ex- 
ecuted in  the  churches  as  early  as  the  ninth  century,  and 
probably  earlier.  The  oldest  now  extant  are  those  at  Ober- 
zell,  dating  back  to  the  last  part  of  the  tenth  century.  Bet- 
ter examples  are  seen  in  the  Lower  Church  of  Schwarzrhein- 
dorf,  of  the  twelfth  century,  and  still  better  in  the  choir 
and  transept  of  the  Brunswick  cathedral,  ascribed  to  the 
early  thirteenth  century. 

All  of  these  works  have  an  archaic  appearance  about 


to  realize  native  surroundings  was  apparent  from  the  begin- 
ning. 

It  is  probable  that  the  earliest  painting  in  Germany  took 
the  form  of  illuminations.  At  what  date  it  first  appeared  is 


FIG.  87.—  LOCHNF-R.  STS.  JOHN,  CATHERINE,  AND  MATTHEW.  NAT.  GAL.  LONDON. 


GERMAN  PAINTING. 


225 

them,  but  they  are  better  in  composition  and  drawing  than 
the  productions  of  Italy  and  Byzantium  at  that  time.  It  is 
likely  that  all  the  German  churches  at  this  time  were  dec- 
orated, but  most  of  the  paintings  have  been  destroyed. 
The  usual  method  was  to  cover  the  walls  and  wooden  ceil- 
ings with  blue  grounds,  and  upon  these  to  place  figures  sur- 
rounded by  architectural  ornaments.  Stained  glass  was  also 
used  extensively.  Panel  painting  seems  to  have  come  into 
existence  before  the  thirteenth  century  (whether  developed 
from  miniature  or  wall-painting  is  unknown),  and  was  used 
for  altar  decorations.  The  panels  were  done  in  tempera 
with  figures  in  light  colors  upon  gold  grounds.  The  spirit- 
uality of  the  age  with  a mingling  of  northern  sentiment  ap- 
peared in  the  figure.  This  figure  was  at  times  graceful,  and 
again  awkward  and  archaic,  according  to  the  place  of  pro- 
duction and  the  influence  of  either  France  or  Italy.  The 
oldest  panels  extant  are  from  the  Wiesenkirche  at  Soest, 
now  in  the  Berlin  Museum.  They  do  not  date  before  the 
thirteenth  century. 

FOURTEENTH  AND  FIFTEENTH  CENTURIES:  In  the  four- 
teenth century  the  influence  of  France  began  to  show 
strongly  in  -willowy  figures,  long  flowing  draperies,  and 
sentimental  poses.  The  artists  along  the  Rhine  showed 
this  more  than  those  in  the  provinces  to  the  east,  where  a 
ruder  if  freer  art  appeared.  The  best  panel-painting  of 
the  time  was  done  at  Cologne,  where  we  meet  with  the  name 
of  the  first  painter,  Meister  Wilhelm,  and  where  a school 
was  established  usually  known  as  the 

SCHOOL  OF  COLOGNE : This  school  probably  got  its  senti- 
mental inclination,  shown  in  slight  forms  and  tender  ex- 
pression, from  France,  but  derived  much  of  its  technic  from 
the  Netherlands.  Stephen  Lochner,  or  Meister  Stephen, 
(fl.  1450)  leaned  toward  the  Flemish  methods,  and  in  his 
celebrated  picture,  the  Madonna  of  the  Rose  Garden,  in  the 
Cologne  Museum,  there  is  an  indication  of  this ; but  there 
*5 


FIG.  88. — WOLGEMUT.  CRUCIFIXION.  MUNICH. 


226  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING, 


is  also  an  individuality  showing  the  growth  of  German  in- 
dependence in  painting.  The  figures  of  his  Dombild  have 


little  manliness  or  power,  but  considerable  grace,  pathos, 
and  religious  feeling.  They  are  not  abstract  types  but  the 


GERMAN  PAINTING. 


227 


spiritualized  people  of  the  country  in  native  costumes,  with 
much  gold,  jewelry,  and  armor.  Gold  was  used  instead  of 
a landscape  background,  and  the  foreground  was  spattered 
with  flowers  and  leaves.  The  outlines  are  rather  hard,  and 
none  of  the  aerial  perspective  of  the  Flemings  is  given. 
After  a time  French  sentiment  was  still  further  encroached 
upon  by  Flemish  realism,  as  shown  in  the  works  of  the 
Master  of  the  Lyversberg  Passion  (fl.  about  1463-1480),  to 
be  seen  in  the  Cologne  Museum. 

BOHEMIAN  SCHOOL:  It  was  not  on  the  Lower  Rhine  alone 
that  German  painting  was  practised.  The  Bohemian 
school,  located  near  Prague,  flourished  for  a short  time  in 
the  fourteenth  century,  under  Charles  IV.,  with  Theodorich 
of  Prague  (fl.  1348-1378),  Wurmser,  and  Kunz,  as  the  chief 
masters.  Their  art  was  quite  the  reverse  of  the  Cologne 
painters.  It  was  heavy,  clumsy,  bony,  awkward.  If  more 
original  it  was  less  graceful,  not  so  pathetic,  not  so  relig- 
ious. Sentiment  was  slurred  through  a harsh  attempt  at 
realism,  and  the  religious*subject  met  with  something  of  a 
check  in  the  romantic  mediaeval  chivalric  theme,  painted 
quite  as  often  on  the  castle  wall  as  the  scriptural  theme 
on  the  church  wall.  After  the  close  of  the  fourteenth  cen- 
tury wall-painting  began  to  die  out  in  favor  of  panel  pict- 
ures. 

NUREMBERG  SCHOOL:  Half-way  between  the  sentiment  of 
Cologne  and  the  realism  of  Prague  stood  the  early  school 
of  Nuremberg,  with  no  known  painter  at  its  head.  Its 
chief  work,  the  Imhof  altar-piece,  shows,  however,  that 
the  Nuremberg  masters  of  the  early  and  middle  fif- 
teenth century  were  between  eastern  and  western  influ- 
ences. They  inclined  to  the  graceful  swaying  figure,  fol- 
lowing more  the  sculpture  of  the  time  than  the  Cologne 
type. 

FIFTEENTH  AND  SIXTEENTH  CENTURIES:  German  art,  if 

begun  in  the  fourteenth  century,  hardly  showed  any  depth 


228 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


or  breadth  until  the  fifteenth  century,  and  no  real  individ- 
ual strength  until  the  sixteenth  century.  It  lagged  behind 
the  other  countries  of  Europe  and  produced  the  cramped 

archaic  altar-piece. 
Then  when  printing 
was  invented  the 
painter-  engraver 
came  into  existence. 
He  was  a man  who 
painted  panels,  but 
found  his  largest 
audience  through 
the  circulation  of 
engravings.  T h e 
two  kinds  of  arts 
being  produced  by 
the  one  man  led  to 
much  detailed  line 
work  with  the 
brush.  Engraving 
is  an  influence  to  be 
borne  in  mind  in  ex- 
amining the  paint- 

FIG.  89. — DURER.  PRAYING  VIRGIN.  AUGSBURG.  . . 

ing  of  this  period. 

FRANCONIAN  SCHOOL:  Nuremberg  was  the  centre  of  this 

school,  and  its  most  famous  early  master  was  Wolgemut 
(1434-15 19),  though  Plydenwurff  is  the  first-named  painter. 
After  the  latter’s  death  Wolgemut  married  his  widow  and 
became  the  head  of  the  school.  His  paintings  were  chiefly 
altar-pieces,  in  which  the  figures  were  rather  lank  and  nar- 
row-shouldered, with  sharp  outlines,  indicative  perhaps  of 
the  influence  of  wood-engraving,  in  which  he  was  much  in- 
terested. There  was,  however,  in  his  work  an  advance  in 
characterization,  nobility  of  expression,  and  quiet  dignity, 
and  it  was  his  good  fortune  to  be  the  master  of  one  of  the 


GERMAN  PAINTING.  229 

most  thoroughly  original  painters  of  all  the  German  schools 
— Albrecht  Diirer  (1471-1528). 

With  Diirer  and  Holbein  German  art  reached  its  apo- 
gee in  the  first  half  of  the  sixteenth  century,  yet  their  work 
was  not  different  in  spirit  from  that  of  their  predecessors. 
Painting  simply  developed  and  became  forceful  and  ex- 
pressive technically  without  abandoning  its  early  character. 
There  is  in  Diirer  a naive  awkwardness  of  figure,  some 
angularity  of  line,  strain  of  pose,  and  in  composition  often- 
times huddling  and  overloading  of  the  scene  with  details. 
There  is  not  that  largeness  which  seemed  native  to  his  Ital- 
ian contemporaries.  He  was  hampered  by  that  German  ex- 
actness, which  found  its  best  expression  in  engraving,  and 
which,  though  unsuited  to  painting,  nevertheless  crept  into 
it.  Within  these  limitations  Diirer  produced  the  typical  art 
of  Germany  in  the  Renaissance  time — an  art  more  attractive 
for  the  charm  and  beauty  of  its  parts  than  for  its  unity,  or 
its  general  impression.  Diirer  was  a travelled  man,  visited 
Italy  and  the  Netherlands,  and,  though  he  always  remained 
a German  in  art,  yet  he  picked  up  some  Italian  methods 
from  Bellini  and  Mantegna  that  are  faintly  apparent  in 
some  of  his  works.  In  subject  he  was  almost  exclusively 
religious,  painting  the  altar-piece  with  infinite  care  upon 
wooden  panel,  canvas,  or  parchment.  He  never  worked  in 
fresco,  preferring  oil  and  tempera.  In  drawing  he  was  often 
harsh  and  faulty,  in  draperies  cramped  at  times,  and  then, 
again,  as  in  the  Apostle  panels  at  Munich,  very  broad,  and 
effective.  Many  of  his  pictures  show  a hard,  dry  brush, 
and  a few,  again,  are  so  free  and  mellow  that  they  look  as 
though  done  by  another  hand.  He  was  usually  minute  in 
detail,  especially  in  such  features  as  hair,  cloth,  flesh.  His 
portraits  were  uneven  and  not  his  best  productions.  He 
was  too  close  a scrutinizer  of  the  part  and  not  enough  of  an 
observer  of  the  whole  for  good  portraiture.  Indeed,  that  is 
the  criticism  to  be  made  upon  all  his  work.  He  was  an  ex- 


230 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


quisite  realist  of  certain  features,  but  not  always  of  the  en- 
semble. Nevertheless  he  holds  first  rank  in  the  German  art 
of  the  Renaissance,  not  only  on  account  of  his  technical 
ability,  but  also  because  of  his  imagination,  sincerity,  and 
striking  originality. 

Durer’s  influence  was  wide-spread  throughout  Germany, 
especially  in  engraving,  of  which  he  was  a master.  In  paint- 
ing Schaufelin  (i49o?-i54o?)  was  probably  his  apprentice, 
and  in  his  work  followed  the  master  so  closely  that  many  of 
his  works  have  been  attributed  to  Diirer.  This  is  true  in 


FIG.  90. — HOLBEIN  THE  YOUNGER.  PORTRAIT.  HAGUE  MUS. 


measure  of  Hans  Baldung  (1476  ?-i552  ?).  Hans  von  Kulm- 
bach  ( ?— 1522)  was  a painter  of  more  than  ordinary  impor- 
tance, brilliant  in  coloring,  a follower  of  Diirer,  who  was  in- 


GERMAN  PAINTING. 


231 


dined  toward  Italian  methods,  an  inclination  that  afterward 
developed  all  through  German  art.  Following  Dlirers  for- 
mulas came  a large  number  of  so-called  “ Little  Masters” 
(from  the  size  of  their  engraved  plates),  who  were  more  en- 
gravers than  painters.  Among  the  more  important  of  those 
who  were  painters  as  well  as  engravers  were  Altdorfer 
(1480  ?-i538),  a rival  rather  than  an  imitator  of  Diirer  ; Bar- 
thel  Beham  (1502-1540),  Sebald  Beham  (1500-1550),  Pencz 
(1500 ?-i55o),  Aldegrever  (1502-1558),  and  Bink  (1490?- 
r569?)- 

SWABIAN  SCHOOL:  This  school  includes  a number  of 
painters  who  were  located  at  different  places,  like  Colmar 
and  Ulm,  and  later  on  it  included  the  Holbeins  at  Augs- 
burg, who  were  really  the  consummation  of  the  school.  In 
the  fifteenth  century  one  of  the  early  leaders  was  Martin 
Schongauer  (1446  ?-i488),  at  Colmar.  He  is  supposed  to 
have  been  a pupil  of  Roger  Van  der  Weyden,  of  the  Flemish 
school,  and  is  better  known  by  his  engravings  than  his 
paintings,  none  of  the  latter  being  positively  authenticated. 
He  was  thoroughly  German  in  his  type  and  treatment, 
though,  perhaps,  indebted  to  the  Flemings  for  his  coloring. 
There  was  some  angularity  in  his  figures  and  draperies, 
and  a tendency  to  get  nearer  nature  and  further  away 
from  the  ecclesiastical  and  ascetic  conception  in  all  that 
he  did. 

At  Ulm  a local  school  came  into  existence  with  Zeitblom 
(fl.  1484-1517),  who  was  probably  a pupil  of  Schiichlin. 
He  had  neither  Schongauer’s  force  nor  his  fancy,  but  was  a 
simple,  straightforward  painter  of  one  rather  strong  type. 
His  drawing  was  not  good,  except  in  the  draperies,  but  he 
was  quite  remarkable  for  the  solidity  and  substance  of  his 
painting,  considering  the  age  he  lived  in  was  given  to  hard, 
thin  brush-work.  Schaffher  (fl.  1500-1535)  was  another 
Ulm  painter,  a junior  to  Zeitblom,  of  whom  little  is  known, 
save  from  a few  pictures  graceful  and  free  in  composition. 


232 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


A recently  discovered  man,  Bernard  Strigel  (1461  ?—  1 5 2 8 ?) 
seems  to  have  been  excellent  in  portraiture. 

At  Augsburg  there  was  still  another  school,  which  came 
into  prominence  in  the  sixteenth  century  with  Burkmair 
and  the  Holbeins.  It  was  only  a part  of  the  Swabian  school, 
a concentration  of  artistic  force  about  Augsburg,  which, 
toward  the  close  of  the  fifteenth  century,  had  come  into 
competition  with  Nuremberg,  and  rather  outranked  it  in 


FIG.  91. — PILOTY.  WISE  AND  FOOLISH  VIRGINS. 


splendor.  It  was  at  Augsburg  that  the  Renaissance  art  in 
Germany  showed  in  more  restful  composition,  less  angu- 
larity, better  modelling  and  painting,  and  more  sense  of  the 
ensemble  of  a picture.  Hans  Burkmair  ( 1 473- 1531)  was  the 
founder  of  the  school,  a pupil  of  Schongauer,  later  in- 
fluenced by  Diirer,  and  finally  showing  the  influence  of 
Italian  art.  He  was  not,  like  Diirer,  a religious  painter, 
though  doing  religious  subjects.  He  was  more  concerned 
with  wordly  appearance,  of  which  he  had  a large  knowl- 
edge, as  may  be  seen  from  his  illustrations  for  engraving. 
As  a painter  he  was  a rather  fine  colorist,  indulging  in  the 


GERMAN  PAINTING. 


233 


fantastic  of  architecture  but  with  good  taste,  crude  in  draw- 
ing but  forceful,  and  at  times  giving  excellent  effects  of 
motion.  He  was  rounder,  fuller,  calmer  in  composition 
than  Diirer,  but  never  so  strong  an  artist. 

Next  to  Burkmair  comes  the  celebrated  Holbein  family. 
There  were  four  of  them  all  told,  but  only  two  of  them, 
Hans  the  Elder  and  Hans  the  Younger,  need  be  mentioned. 
Holbein  the  Elder  ( 1460  ?-i524),  after  Burkmair,  was  the 
best  painter  of  his  time  and  school  without  being  in  him- 
self a great  artist.  Schongauer  was  at  first  his  guide, 
though  he  soon  submitted  to  some  Flemish  and  Cologne 
influence,  and  later  on  followed  Italian  form  and  method 
in  composition  to  some  extent.  He  was  a good  draughts- 
man, and  very  clever  at  catching  realistic  points  of  phys- 
iognomy— a gift  he  left  his  son  Hans.  In  addition  he  had 
some  feeling  for  architecture  and  ornament,  and  in  hand- 
ling was  a bit  hard,  and  oftentimes  careless.  The  best  half 
of  his  life  fell  in  the  latter  part  of  the  fifteenth  century, 
and  he  never  achieved  the  free  painter’s  quality  of  his  son. 

Hans  Holbein  the  Younger  (1497-1543)  holds,  with  Diirer, 
the  high  place  in  German  art.  He  was  a more  mature 
painter  than  Diirer,  coming  as  he  did  a quarter  of  a cen- 
tury later.  He  was  the  Renaissance  artist  of  Germany, 
whereas  Diirer  always  had  a little  of  the  Gothic  clinging  to 
him.  The  two  men  were  widely  different  in  their  points 
of  view  and  in  their  work.  Diirer  was  an  idealist  seeking 
after  a type,  a religious  painter,  a painter  of  panels  with 
the  spirit  of  an  engraver.  Holbein  was  emphatically  a real- 
ist finding  material  in  the  actual  life  about  him,  a designer 
of  cartoons  and  large  wall  paintings  in  something  of  the 
Italian  spirit,  a man  who  painted  religious  themes  but  with 
little  spiritual  significance. 

It  is  probable  that  he  got  his  first  instruction  from  his 
father  and  from  Burkmair.  He  was  an  infant  prodigy,  de- 
veloped early,  saw  much  foreign  art,  and  showed  a number 


234 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


of  tendencies  in  his  work.  In  composition  and  drawing  he 
appeared  at  times  to  be  following  Mantegna  and  the  north- 
ern Italians ; in  brush-work  he  resembled  the  Flemings,  es- 
pecially Massys ; yet  he  was  never  an  imitator  of  either 
Italian  or  Flemish  painting.  Decidedly  a self-sufficient  and 
an  observing  man,  he  travelled  in  Italy  and  the  Netherlands, 
and  spent  much  of  his  life  in  England,  where  he  met  with 
great  success  at  court  as  a portrait-painter.  From  seeing 
much  he  assimilated  much,  yet  always  remained  German, 
changing  his  style  but  little  as  he  grew  older.  His  wall 
paintings  have  perished,  but  the  drawings  from  them  are 
preserved  and  show  him  as  an  artist  of  much  invention.  He 
is  now  known  chiefly  by  his  portraits,  of  which  there  are 
many  of  great  excellence.  His  facility  in  grasping  physiog- 
nomy and  realizing  character,  the  quiet  dignity  of  his  com- 
position, his  firm  modelling,  clear  outline,  harmonious  color- 
ing, excellent  detail,  and  easy  solid  painting,  all  place  him 
in  the  front  rank  of  great  painters.  That  he  was  not  always 
bound  down  to  literal  facts  may  be  seen  in  his  many  designs 
for  wood-engravings.  His  portrait  of  Hubert  Morett,  in 
the  Dresden  Gallery,  shows  his  art  to  advantage,  and  there 
are  many  portraits  by  him  of  great  spirit  in  England,  in  the 
Louvre,  and  elsewhere. 

SAXON  SCHOOL:  Lucas  Cranach  (1472-1553)  was  a Fran- 
conian master,  who  settled  in  Saxony  and  was  successively 
court-painter  to  three  Electors  and  the  leader  of  a small 
local  school  there.  He,  perhaps,  studied  under  Grunewald, 
but  was  so  positive  a character  that  he  showed  no  strong 
school  influence.  His  work  was  fantastic,  odd  in  concep- 
tion and  execution,  sometimes  ludicrous,  and  always  archaic- 
looking.  His  type  was  rather  strained  in  proportions, 
not  always  well  drawn,  but  graceful  even  when  not  truth- 
ful. This  type  was  carried  into  all  his  works,  and  finally 
became  a mannerism  with  him.  In  subject  he  was  religious, 
mythological,  romantic,  pastoral,  with  a preference  for  the 


GERMAN  PAINTING. 


235 


nude  figure.  In  coloring  he  was  at  first  golden,  then  brown, 
and  finally  cold  and  sombre.  The  lack  of  aerial  perspective 
and  shadow  masses  gave  his  work  a queer  look,  and  he  was 
never  much  of  a brushman.  His  pictures  were  typical  of 
the  time  and  country,  and  for  that  and  for  their  strong  in- 
dividuality they  are  ranked  among  the  most  interesting 
paintings  of  the  German  school.  Perhaps  his  most  satis- 
factory works  are  his  portraits.  Lucas  Cranach  the  Younger 
(1515-1586)  was  the  best  of  the  elder  Cranach’s  pupils. 
Many  of  his  pictures  are  attributed  to  his  father.  He  fol- 
lowed the  elder  closely,  but  was  a weaker  man,  with  a 
smoother  brush  and  a more 
rosy  color.  Though  there 
were  many  pupils  the  school 
did  not  go  beyond  the  Cra- 
nach family.  It  began  with 
the  father  and  died  with  the 
son. 

SEVENTEENTH  AND  EIGH- 
TEENTH CENTURIES : These 
were  unrelieved  centuries  of 
decline  in  German  painting. 

After  Diirer,  Holbein,  and 
Cranach  had  passed  there 
came  about  a senseless  imi- 
tation of  Italy,  combined 
with  an  equally  senseless 
imitation  of  detail  in  nature 
that  produced  nothing  wor- 
thy of  the  name  of  original 
or  genuine  art.  It  is  not 
probable  that  the  Reformation  had  any  more  to  do  with 
this  than  with  the  decline  in  Italy.  It  was  a period  of 
barrenness  in  both  countries.  The  Italian  imitators  in  Ger- 
many were  chiefly  Rottenhammer  (1564-1623),  and  Elzheimer 


FIG.  92. — LEIBL.  'IN  CHURCH. 


236 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


(1574  ?-i62o).  After  them  came  the  representative  of  the 
other  extreme  in  Denner  (1685-1749),  who  thought  to  be 
great  in  portraiture  by  the  minute  imitation  of  hair,  freckles, 
and  three-days’-old  beard — a petty  and  unworthy  realism 
which  excited  some  curiosity  but  never  held  rank  as  art. 
Mengs  (1728-1779)  sought  for  the  sublime  through  eclec- 
ticism, but  never  reached  it.  His  work,  though  academic 
and  correct,  is  lacking  in  spirit  and  originality.  Angelica 
Kauffman  (1741-1807)  succeeded  in  pleasing  her  inartistic 
age  with  the  simply  pretty,  while  Carstens  (1754-1798) 
was  a conscientious  if  mistaken  student  of  the  great  Ital- 
ians— a man  of  some  severity  in  form  and  of  academic  incli- 
nations. 

NINETEENTH  CENTURY:  In  the  first  part  of  this  century 
there  started  in  Germany  a so-called  “ revival  of  art  ” led 
by  Overbeck  (1789-1869),  Cornelius  (1783-1867),  Veit  (1793- 
1877),  and  Schadow  (1789-1862),  but  like  many  another  revi- 
val of  art  it  did  not  amount  to  much.  The  attempt  to 
“revive”  the  past  is  usually  a failure.  The  forms  are 
caught,  but  the  spirit  is  lost.  The  nineteenth-century  at- 
tempt in  Germany  was  brought  about  by  the  study  of 
monumental  painting  in  Italy,  and  the  taking  up  of  the  re- 
ligious spirit  in  a pre-Raphaelite  manner.  Something  also 
of  German  romanticism  was  its  inspiration.  Overbeck  re- 
mained in  Rome,  but  the  others,  after  some  time  in  Italy, 
returned  to  Germany,  diffused  their  teaching,  and  really 
formed  a new  epoch  in  German  painting.  A modern  art 
began  with  ambitions  and  subjects  entirely  disproportionate 
to  its  skill.  The  monumental,  the  ideal,  the  classic,  the 
exalted,  were  spread  over  enormous  spaces,  but  there  was 
no  reason  for  such  work  in  the  contemporary  German  life, 
and  nothing  to  warrant  its  appearance  save  that  its  better 
had  appeared  in  Italy  during  the  Renaissance.  Cornelius 
after  his  return  became  the  head  of  the 

MUNICH  SCHOOL  and  painted  pictures  of  the  heroes  of  the 


GERMAN  PAINTING. 


23  7 


classic  and  the  Christian  world  upon  a large  scale.  Nothing 
but  their  size  and  good  intention  ever  brought  them  into  no- 
tice, for  their  form  and  coloring  were  both  commonplace. 
Schnorr  (1794-1872)  followed  in  the  same  style  with  the 
Niebelungen  Lied,  Charlemagne,  and  Barbarossa  for  subjects. 
Kaulbach  ( 1 805- 1 874)  was  a pupil  of  Cornelius,  and  had  some 
ability  but  little  taste,  and  not  enough  originality  to  produce 
great  art.  Piloty  (1 826-1 886)  was  more  realistic,  more  of  a 
painter  and  ranks  as  one  of  the  best  of  the  early  Munich 
masters.  After  him  Munich  art  became genre-hke  in  subject, 
with  greater  attention  given  to  truthful  representation  in 
light,  color,  texture.  To-day  there  are  a large  number  of 
painters  in  the  school  who  are  remarkable  for  realistic  detail. 

DUSSELDOEF  SCHOOL:  After  1 826  this  school  came  into 
prominence  under  the  guidance  of  Schadow.  It  did  not 
fancy  monumental  painting  so  much  as  the  common  easel 
picture,  with  the  sentimental,  the  dramatic,  or  the  romantic 
subject.  It  was  no  better  in  either  form  or  color  than  the 
Munich  school,  in  fact  not  so  good,  though  there  were 
painters  who  emanated  from  it  who  had  ability.  At  Berlin 
the  inclination  was  to  follow  the  methods  and  ideas  held  at 
Difsseldorf. 

The  whole  academic  tendency  of  modern  painting  in  Ger- 
many and  Austria  for  the  past  fifty  years  has  not  been  favor- 
able to  the  best  kind  of  pictorial  art.  There  is  a disposition 
on  the  part  of  artists  to  tell  stories,  to  encroach  upon  the  sen- 
timent of  literature,  to  paint  with  a dry  brush  in  harsh  un- 
sympathetic colors,  to  ignore  relations  of  light-and-shade, 
and  to  slur  beauties  of  form.  The  subject  seems  to  count 
for  more  than  the  truth  of  representation,  or  the  individu- 
ality of  view.  From  time  to  time  artists  of  much  ability 
have  appeared,  but  these  form  an  exception  rather  than  a 
rule.  The  men  to-day  who  are  the  great  artists  of  Germany 
are  less  followers  of  the  German  tradition  than  individuals 
each  working  in  a style  peculiar  to  himself.  A few  only  of 


23S 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


traitist ; Uhde  (1848-),  a portrayer  of  scriptural  scenes  in 
modern  costumes  with  much  sincerity,  good  color,  and 
light  ; Leibl  (1844-1900),  an  artist  with  something  of  the 
Holbein  touch  and  realism  ; Thoma,  a Frankfort  painter  of 
decorative  friezes  and  panels ; Liebermann,  Gotthardt  Kuehl, 
Franz  Stuck,  Max  Klinger. 

Aside  from  these  men  there  are  several  notable  painters 
with  German  affinities,  like  Makart  (1840-1884),  an  Austrian, 
who  possessed  good  technical  qualities  and  indulged  in  a pro- 
fusion of  color  ; Munkacsy  (1846-1900),  a Hungarian , who  is 
perhaps  more  Parisian  than  German  in  technic,  and  Bocklin 
(1827-1901),  a Swiss,  who  is  quite  by  himself  in  fantastic  and 
grotesque  subjects,  a weird  and  uncanny  imagination,  and  a 
brilliant  prismatic  coloring. 


them  call  for  mention.  Menzel  (1815-)  is  easily  first,  a 
painter  of  group  pictures,  a good  colorist,  and  a powerful 
pen-and-ink.  draughtsman  ; Lenbach  (1836-),  a forceful  por- 


FIG.  93. — MENZEL.  A READER. 


GERMAN  PAINTING. 


239 


PRINCIPAL  WORKS:  Bohemian  School — Theoderich  of  Prague, 

Karlstein  chap,  and  University  Library  Prague,  Vienna  Mus.  : Wurmser, 
same  places. 

Franconian  School — Wolgemut,  Aschaffenburg,  Munich,  Nurem- 
berg, Cassel  Mus.  ; Diirer,  Crucifixion  Dresden,  Trinity  Vienna  Mus., 
other  works  Munich,  Nuremberg,  Madrid  Mus.  ; Schaufelin,  Basle, 
Bamberg,  Cassel,  Munich,  Nuremberg,  Nordlingen  Mus.,  and  Ulm 
Cathedral  ; Baldung,  Aschaffenburg,  Basle,  Berlin,  Kunsthalle  Carlsruhe, 
Freiburg  Cathedral  ; Kulmbach,  Munich,  Nuremberg,  Oldenburg ; 
Altdorfer  and  the  “ Little  Masters  ” are  seen  in  the  Augsburg,  Nuremberg, 
Berlin,  Munich  and  Furstenberg  Mus. 

Swabian  School — Schongauer,  attributed  pictures  Colmar  Mus.  ; 
Zeitblom,  Augsburg,  Berlin,  Carlsruhe,  Munich,  Nuremberg,  Simaringen 
Mus.;  Schaffner,  Munich,  Schliessheim,  Nuremberg,  Ulm  Cathedral; 
Strigel,  Berlin,  Carlsruhe,  Munich,  Nuremberg  ; Burkmair,  Augsburg, 
Beilin,  Munich,  Maurice  chap.  Nuremberg ; Holbein  the  Elder, 
Augsburg,  Nuremberg,  Basle,  Stadel  Mus.,  Frankfort  ; Holbein  the 
Younger,  Basle,  Carlsruhe,  Darmstadt,  Dresden.  Berlin,  Louvre, 
Windsor  Castle,  Vienna  Mus. 

Saxon  School — Cranach,  Bamberg  Cathedral  and  Gallery,  Munich, 
Vienna,  Dresden,  Berlin,  Stuttgart,  Cassel ; Cranach  the  Younger, 
Stadtkirche  Wittenberg,  Leipsic,  Vienna,  Nuremberg  Mus. 

SEVENTEENTH-  AND  EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY  PAINTERS:  Rot- 
tenhammer,  Louvre,  Berlin,  Munich,  Schliessheim,  Vienna,  Kunsthalle 
Hamburg  ; Elzheimer,  Stadel,  Brunswick,  Louvre,  Munich,  Berlin, 
Dresden ; Denner,  Kunsthalle  Hamburg,  Berlin,  Brunswick,  Dresden, 
Vienna,  Munich  ; Mengs,  Madrid,  Vienna,  Dresden,  Munich,  St. 
Petersburg;  Angelica  Kauffman,  Vienna,  Hermitage,  Turin,  Dresden, 
Nat.  Gal.  Lon.,  Phila.  Acad. 

NINETEENTH-CENTURY  PAINTERS : Overbeck,  frescos  in  S. 

Maria  degli  Angeli  Assisi,  Villa  Massimo  Rome,  Carlsruhe,  New  Pina- 
cothek,  Munich,  Stadel  Mus.,  Dusseldorf  ; Cornelius,  frescos  Glyp- 
tothek  and  Ludwigkirche  Munich,  Casa  Zuccaro  Rome,  Royal  Cem- 
etery Berlin  ; Veit,  frescos  Villa  Bartholdi  Rome,  Stadel,  Nat.  Gal. 
Berlin ; Schadow,  Nat.  Gal.  Berlin,  Antwerp,  Stadel,  Munich  Mus., 
frescos  Villa  Bartholdi  Rome  ; Schnorr,  Dresden,  Cologne,  Carls- 
ruhe, New  Pinacothek  Munich,  Stadel  Mus.  ; Kaulbach,  wall  paint- 
ings Berlin  Mus.,  Raczynski  Gal.  Berlin,  New  Pinacothek  Munich,  Stutt- 
gart, Phila.  Acad.  ; Piloty,  best  pictures  in  the  New  Pinacothek  and 
Maximilianeum  Munich,  Nat.  Gal.  Berlin ; Menzel,  Nat.  Gal.,  Rac- 
zynski Mus.  Berlin,  Breslau  Mus.  ; Lenbach,  Nat.  Gal.  Berlin,  New 


240 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


Pinacothek  Munich,  Kunsthalle  Hamburg,  Zurich  Gal.;  Uhde,  Leipsic 
Mus.  ; Leibl,  Dresden  Mus.  The  contemporary  paintings  have  not  as 
yet  found  their  way,  to  any  extent,  into  public  museums,  but  may  be  seen 
in  the  expositions  at  Berlin  and  Munich  from  year  to  year.  Makart  has 
one  work  in  the  Metropolitan  Mus.,  N.  Y.,  as  has  also  Munkacsy  ; other 
works  by  them  and  by  Bocklin  may  be  seen  in  the  Nat.  Gal.  Berlin. 


CHAPTER  XIX. 


BRITISH  PAINTING. 

Books  Recommended  : Armstrong,  Sir  Henry  Raeburn ; 
Armstrong,  Gainsborough  ; Armstrong,  Sir  Joshua  Reynolds  ; 
Burton,  Catalogue  of  Pictures  in  National  Gallery ; Ches- 
neau,  La  Peinture  Anglaise ; Cook,  Art  in  England;  Cun- 
ningham, Lives  of  the  most  Eminent  British  Artists  ; Dobson, 
Life  of  Hogarth ; Gilchrist,  Life  of  Etty ; Gilchrist,  Life  of 
Blake ; Hamerton,  Life  of  Turner ; Hunt,  The  Pre-Raphaelite 
Brotherhood  ( Contemporary  Review , Vol.  49)  ; Leslie,  Sir 
Joshua  Reynolds ; Leslie,  Life  of  Constable ; Martin  and 
Newbery,  Glasgow  School  of  Painting  • Monkhouse,  British 
Contemporary  Artists ; Redgrave,  Dictionary  of  Artists  of 
the  English  School ; Romney,  Life  of  George  Romney ; Ros- 
setti, Fine  Art,  chiefly  Contemporary ; Ruskin,  Pre-Raphael- 
itism  ; Ruskin,  Art  of  England ; Sandby,  History  of  Royal 
Academy  of  Arts ; William  Bell  Scott,  Autobiography;  Scott, 
British  Landscape  Painters  ; Stephens,  Catalogue  of  Prints  and 
Drawings  in  the  British  Museum  ; Swinburne,  William  Blake ; 
Temple,  Painting  in  the  Queen's  Reign  ; Van  Dyke,  Old  Eng- 
lish Masters ; Wedmore,  Studies  in  English  Art ; Wilmot- 
Buxton,  English  Painters  ; Wright,  Life  of  Richard  Wilson. 

BRITISH  PAINTING:  It  may  be  premised  in  a general 
way,  that  the  British  painters  have  never  possessed  the 
pictorial  cast  of  mind  in  the  sense  that  the  Italians,  the 
French,  or  the  Dutch  have  possessed  it.  Painting,  as  a 
purely  pictorial  arrangement  of  line  and  color,  has  been 
somewhat  foreign  to  their  conception.  Whether  this  fail- 
ure to  appreciate  painting  as  painting  is  the  result  of  geo- 
graphical position,  isolation,  race  temperament,  or  mental 
disposition,  would  be  hard  to  determine.  It  is  quite  cer- 
16 


242 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


been  brought  to  their  minds  by  words  rather  than  by 
forms.  English  poetry  has  existed  since  the  days  of  Ar- 
thur and  the  Round  Table,  but  English  painting  is  of  com- 
paratively modern  origin,  and  it  is  not  wonderful  that  the 
original  leaning  of  the  people  toward  literature  and  its  sen- 
timent should  find  its  way  into  pictorial  representation.  As 
a result  one  may  say  in  a very  general  way  that  English 
painting  is  more  illustrative  than  creative.  It  endeavors 
to  record  things  that  might  be  more  pertinently  and  corn- 


tain  that  from  time  immemorable  the  English  people  have 
not  been  lacking  in  the  appreciation  of  beauty  ; but  beauty 
has  appealed  to  them,  not  so  much  through  the  eye  in 
painting  and  sculpture,  as  through  the  ear  in  poetry  and 
literature.  They  have  been  thinkers,  reasoners,  moralists, 
rather  than  observers  and  artists  in  color.  Images  have 


FIG.  94. — HOGARTH.  SHORTLY  AFTER  MARRIAGE.  NAT.  GAL.  LONDON. 


BRITISH  PAINTING. 


243 


pletely  told  in  poetry,  romance,  or  history.  The  concep- 
tion of  large  art — creative  work  of  the  Rubens-Titian  type — 
has  not  been  given  to  the  English  painters,  save  in  excep- 
tional cases.  Their  success  has  been  in  portraiture  and 
landscape,  and  this  largely  by  reason  of  following  the  model. 

EARLY  PAINTING:  The  earliest  decorative  art  appeared 
in  Ireland.  It  was  probably  first  planted  there  by  mis- 
sionaries from  Italy,  and  it  reached  its  height  in  the  seventh 
century.  In  the  ninth  and  tenth  centuries  missal  illumina- 
tion of  a Byzantine  cast,  with  local  modifications,  began  to 
show.  This  lasted,  in  a feeble  way,  until  the  fifteenth  cen- 
tury, when  work  of  a Flemish  and  French  nature  took  its 
place.  In  the  Middle  Ages  there  were  wall  paintings  and 
church  decorations  in  England,  as  elsewhere  in  Europe,  but 
these  have  now  perished,  except  some  fragments  in  Kemp- 
Iey  Church,  Gloucestershire,  and  Chaldon  Church,  Surrey. 
These  are  supposed  to  date  back  to  the  twelfth  century, 
and  there  are  some  remains  of  painting  in  Westminster 
Abbey  that  are  said  to  be  of  thirteenth-  and  fourteenth-cen- 
tury origin.  From  the  fifteenth  to  the  eighteenth  century 
the  English  people  depended  largely  upon  foreign  painters 
who  came  and  lived  in  England.  Mabuse,  Moro,  Hol- 
bein, Rubens,  Van  Dyck,  Lely,  Kneller — all  were  there  at 
different  times,  in  the  service  of  royalty,' and  influencing 
such  local  English  painters  as  then  lived.  The  outcome  of 
missal  illumination  and  Holbein’s  example  produced  in  the 
sixteenth  and  seventeenth  centuries  a local  school  of  minia- 
ture-painters of  much  interest,  but  painting  proper  did  not 
begin  to  rise  in  England  until  the  beginning  of  the  eigh- 
teenth century — that  century  so  dead  in  art  over  all  the  rest 
of  Europe. 

FIGURE  AND  PORTRAIT  PAINTERS : Aside  from  a few  in- 
consequential precursors  the  first  English  artist  of  note 
was  Hogarth  (1697-1764).  He  was  an  illustrator,  a moralist, 
and  a satirist  as  well  as  a painter.  To  point  a moral  upon 


244 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


canvas  by  depicting  the  vices  of  his  time  was  his  avowed 
aim,  but  in  doing  so  he  did  not  lose  sight  of  pictorial 
beauty.  Charm  of  color,  the  painter’s  taste  in  arrangement, 
light,  air,  setting,  were  his  in  a remarkable  degree.  He  was 
not  successful  in  large  compositions,  but  in  small  pictures 
like  those  of  the  Rake’s  Progress  he  was  excellent.  An 
early  man,  a rigid  stickler  for  the  representation,  a keen 
observer  of  physiognomy,  a satirist  with  a sense  of  the  ab- 
surd, he  was  often  warped  in  his  art  by  the  necessities  of 
his  subject  and  was  sometimes  hard  and  dry  in  method  ; 

but  in  his  best  work 
he  was  quite  a per- 
f e c t painter.  He 
was  the  first  of  the 
English  school,  and 
perhaps  the  most 
original  of  that 
school.  This  is 
quite  as  true  of  his 
technic  as  of  his 
point  of  view.  Both 
were  of  his  own 
creation.  His  sub- 
jects have  been 
talked  about  a great 
deal  in  the  past ; but 
his  painting  is  not 
to  this  day  valued 
as  it  should  be. 

The  next  man  to 

FIG.  95. -REYNOLDS.  COUNTESS  SPENCER  AND  LORD  mentioned  OnC 

ALTHORP.  ’ 

of  the  most  consid- 
erable of  all  the  English  school,  is  Sir  Joshua  Reynolds 
(1723-1792).  He  was  a pupil  of  Hudson,  but  owed  his  art 
to  many  sources.  Besides  the  influence  of  Van  Dyck  he 


BRITISH  PAINTING. 


245 


was  for  some  years  in  Italy,  a diligent  student  of  the  great 
Italians,  especially  the  Venetians,  Correggio,  and  the  Bo- 
lognese Eclectics.  Sir  Joshua  was  inclined  to  be  eclectic 
himself,  and  from  Italy  he  brought  back  a formula  of  art 
which,  modified  by  his  own  individuality,  answered  him  for 
the  rest  of  his  life.  He  was  not  a man  of  very  lofty 
imagination  or  great  invention.  A few  figure-pieces,  after 
the  Titian  initiative,  came  from  his  studio,  but  his  repu- 
tation rests  upon  his  many  portraits.  In  portraiture  he 
was  often  beyond  criticism,  giving  the  realistic  represen- 
tation with  dignity,  an  elevated  spirit,  and  a suave  brush. 
Even  here  he  was  more  impressive  by  his  broad  truth  of 
facts  than  by  his  artistic  feeling.  He  was  not  a painter  who 
could  do  things  enthusiastically  or  excite  enthusiasm  in  the 
spectator.  There  was  too  much  of  rule  and  precedent,  too 
much  regard  for  the  traditions,  for  him  to  do  anything 
strikingly  original.  His  brush  work  and  composition  were 
more  learned  than  individual,  and  his  color,  though  usually 
good,  was  oftentimes  conventional  in  contrasts.  Taking 
him  for  all  in  all  he  was  a very  cultivated  painter,  a man  to 
be  respected  and  admired,  but  he  had  not  quite  the  original 
spirit  that  we  meet  with  in  Gainsborough. 

Reynolds  was  well-grounded  in  Venetian  color,  Bolognese 
composition,  Parmese  light-and-shade,  and  paid  them  the 
homage  of  assimilation;  but  if  Gainsborough  (1727-1788) 
had  such  school  knowledge  he  positively  disregarded  it. 
He  disliked  all  conventionalities  and  formulas.  With  a 
natural  taste  for  form  and  color,  and  with  a large  decora- 
tive sense,  he  went  directly  to  nature,  and  took  from  her 
the  materials  which  he  fashioned  into  art  after  his  own 
peculiar  manner.  His  celebrated  Blue  Boy  was  his  protest 
against  the  conventional  rule  of  Reynolds  that  a composi- 
tion should  be  warm  in  color  and  light.  All  through  his 
work  we  meet  with  departures  from  academic  ways.  By 
dint  of  native  force  and  grace  he  made  rules  unto  himself. 


246  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 

Some  of  them  were  not  entirely  successful,  and  in  drawing 
he  might  have  profited  by  school  training  ; but  he  was  of 
a peculiar  poetic  temperament,  with  a dash  of  melancholy 

about  him,  and  preferred 
to  work  in  his  own  way. 
In  portraiture  his  color 
was  rather  cold  ; in  land- 
scape much  warmer. 
His  brush-work  was  as 
odd  as  himself,  but  usu- 
ally effective,  and  his 
accessories  in  figure- 
painting were  little  more 
than  decorative  after- 
thoughts. Both  in  por- 
traiture and  landscape 
he  was  one  of  the  most 
original  and  most  Eng- 
lish of  all  the  English 
painters — a man  not  yet 
entirely  appreciated, 
though  from  the  first 
ranked  among  the  fore- 
most in  English  art. 

Romney  (1734-1802),  a pupil  of  Steele,  was  often  quite 
as  masterful  a portrait-painter  as  either  Reynolds  or  Gains- 
borough. He  was  never  an  artist  elaborate  in  composi- 
tion, and  his  best  works  are  bust-portraits  with  a plain 
background.  These  he  did  with  much  dash  and  vivacity 
of  manner.  His  women,  particularly,  are  fine  in  life-like 
pose  and  winsomeness  of  mood.  He  was  a very  cunning 
observer,  and  knew  how  to  arrange  for  grace  of  line  and 
charm  of  color. 

After  Romney  came  Beechey  (1753-1839),  Raeburn  (1 756— 
1823),  Opie  (1761-1807),  and  John  Hoppner  (1759-1810). 


BRITISH  PAINTING. 


247 


Then  followed  Lawrence  (1769-1830),  a mixture  of  viva- 
cious style  and  rather  meretricious  method.  He  was  the 
most  celebrated  painter  of  his  time,  largely  because  he 
painted  nobility  to  look  more  noble  and  grace  to  look. more 
gracious.  Fond  of  fine  types,  garments,  draperies,  colors,  he 
was  always  seeking  the  sparkling  rather  than  the  true,  and 
forcing  artificial  effects  for  the  sake  of  startling  one  rather 
than  stating  facts  simply  and  frankly.  He  was  facile  with 
the  brush,  clever  in  line  and  color,  brilliant  to  the  last  de- 
gree, but  lacking  in  that  simplicity  of  view  and  method  which 
marks  the  great  mind.  His  composition  was  rather  fine 
in  its  decorative  effect,  and,  though  his  lights  were  often 
faulty  when  compared  with  nature,  they  were  no  less  telling 
from  the  stand-point  of  picture-making.  He  is  much  ad- 
mired by  artists  to-day,  and,  as  a technician,  he  certainly 
had  more  than  average  ability.  He  was  hardly  an  artist 
like  Reynolds  or  Gainsborough,  but  among  the  mediocre 
painters  of  his  day  he  shone  like  a star.  It  is  not  worth 
while  to  say  much  about  his  contemporaries.  Etty  (1787- 
1849)  was  one  of  the  best  of  the  figure  men,  but  his  Greek 
types  and  classic  aspirations  grow  wearisome  on  acquaint- 
ance ; and  Sir  Charles  Eastlake  (1793-1865),  though  a 
learned  man  in  art  and  doing  great  service  to  painting  as  a 
writer,  never  was  a painter  of  importance. 

William  Blake  (1757-1827)  was  hardly  a painter  at  all, 
though  he  drew  and  colored  the  strange  figures  of  his 
fancy  and  cannot  be  passed  over  in  any  history  of  English 
art.  He  was  perhaps  the  most  imaginative  artist  of  Eng- 
lish birth,  though  that  imagination  was  often  disordered 
and  almost  incoherent.  He  was  not  a correct  draughts- 
man, a man  with  no  great  color-sense,  and  a workman 
without  technical  training  ; and  yet,  in  spite  of  all  this,  he 
drew  some  figures  that  are  almost  sublime  in  their  sweep  of 
power.  His  decorative  sense  in  filling  space  with  lines  is 
well  shown  in  his  illustrations  to  the  Book  of  Job.  In  grace 


248 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


of  form  and  feeling  of  motion  he  was  excellent.  Weird  and 
uncanny  in  thought,  delving  into  the  unknown,  he  opened 
a world  of  mystery,  peopled  with  a strange  Apocalyptic  race, 
whose  writhing,  flowing  bodies  are  the  epitome  of  graceful 
grandeur. 

GENRE-PAINTERS:  From  Blake  to  Morland  (1763-1804)  is 


FIG.  97. — CONSTABLE.  CORN  FIELD.  NAT.  GAL.  LONDON. 


a step  across  space  from  heaven  to  earth.  Morland  was  a 
realist  of  English  country  life,  horses  at  tavern-doors, 
cattle,  pigs.  His  life  was  not  the  most  correct,  but  his  art 
in  truthfulness  of  representation,  simplicity  of  painting, 
richness  of  color  and  light,  was  often  of  a fine  quality.  As 
a skilful  technician  he  stood  quite  alone  in  his  time,  and 
seemed  to  show  more  affinity  with  the  Dutch  ^zz/r-painters 


BRITISH  PAINTING. 


249 


than  his  own  countrymen.  His  works  are  much  prized 
to-day,  and  were  so  during  the  painter’s  life. 

Sir  David  Wilkie  (1785-1841)  was  also  somewhat  like  the 
Dutch  in  subject,  a^wwv-painter,  fond  of  the  village  fete  and 
depicting  it  with  careful  detail,  a limpid  brush,  and  good  text- 
ural effects.  In  1825  he  travelled  abroad,  was  gone  some 
years,  was  impressed  by  Velasquez,  Correggio,  and  Rem- 
brandt, and  completely  changed  his  style.  He  then  became 
a portrait  and  historical  painter.  He  never  outlived  the  ner- 
vous constraint  that  shows  in  all  his  pictures,  and  his  brush, 
though  facile  within  limits,  was  never  free  or  bold  as  com- 
pared with  a Dutchman  like  Steen.  In  technical  methods 
Landseer  (1802-1873),  the  painter  of  animals,  was  somewhat 
like  him.  That  is  to  say,  they  both  had  a method  of  painting 
surfaces  and  rendering  textures  that  was  more  “ smart  ” than 
powerful.  There  is  little  solidity  or  depth  to  the  brush- 
work  of  either,  though  both  are  impressive  to  the  spectator 
at  first  sight.  Landseer  knew  the  habits  and  the  anatomy 
of  animals  very  well,  but  he  never  had  an  appreciation  of  the 
brute  in  the  animal,  such  as  we  see  in  the  pictures  of  Velas- 
quez or  the  bronzes  of  Barye.  The  Landseer  animal  has  too 
much  sentiment  about  it.  The  dogs,  for  instance,  are  gener- 
ally given  those  emotions  pertinent  to  humanity,  and  which 
are  only  exceptionally  true  of  the  canine  race.  This  very 
feature — the  tendency  to  humanize  the  brute  and  make  it 
cell  a story — accounts  in  large  measure  for  the  popularity  of 
Landseer’s  art.  The  work  is  perhaps  correct  enough,  but  the 
aim  of  it  is  somewhat  afield  from  pure  painting.  It  illus- 
trates the  literary  rather  than  the  pictorial.  Following  Wil- 
kie the  most  distinguished  painter  was  Mulready  (1786-1863), 
whose  pictures  of  village  boys  are  well  known  through  en- 
gravings. 

THE  LANDSCAPE  PAINTERS:  In  landscape  the  English 
have  had  something  to  say  peculiarly  their  own.  It  has 
not  always  been  well  said,  the  coloring  is  often  hot,  the 


250  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 

brush-work  brittle,  the  attention  to  detail  inconsistent  with 
the  large  view  of  nature,  yet  such  as  it  is  it  shows  the  Eng- 
lish point  of  view  and  is  valuable  on  that  account.  Richard 
Wilson  (i  7 i 3-1  782)  was  the  first  landscapist  of  importance, 
though  he  was  not  so  English  in  view  as  some  others  to  fol- 
low. In  fact,  Wilson  was  nurtured  on  Claude  Lorrain  and 
Joseph  Vernet  and  instead  of  painting  the  realistic  English 
landscape  he  painted  the  pseudo-Italian  landscape.  He  be- 
gan working  in  portraiture  under  the  tutorship  of  Wright, 
and  achieved  some  success  in  this  department ; but  in  1 749 
he  went  to  Italy  and  devoted  himself  wholly  to  landscapes. 
These  were  of  the  classic  type  and  somewhat  conventional. 
The  composition  was  usually  a dark  foreground  with  trees 


or  buildings  to  right  and  left,  an  opening  in  the  middle 
distance  leading  into  the  background,  and  a broad  expanse 
of  sunset  sky.  In  the  foreground  he  usually  introduced  a 


FIG.  98. — TURNER.  FIGHTING  t£m!?RAIRE.  NAT.  GAL.  LONDON. 


BRITISH  PAINTING. 


few  figures  for  romantic  or  classic  association.  Consider- 
able elevation  of  theme  and  spirit  marks  most  of  his  pictures. 
There  was  good  workmanship  about  the  skies  and  the  light, 
and  an  attentive  study  of  nature  was  shown  throughout. 
His  canvases  did  not  meet  with  much  success  at  the  time 
they  were  painted.  In  more  modern  days  Wilson  has  been 
ranked  as  the  true  founder  of  landscape  in  England,  and  one 
of  the  most  sincere  of  English  painters. 

THE  NORWICH  SCHOOL:  Old  Crome  (1769-1821),  though  in- 
fluenced to  some  extent  by  Wilson  and  the  Dutch  painters, 
was  an  original  talent,  painting  English  scenery  with  much 
simplicity  and  considerable  power.  He  was  sometimes  rasp- 
ing with  his  brush,  and  had  a small  method  of  recording  de- 
tails combined  with  mannerisms  of  drawing  and  composition, 
and  yet  gave  an  out-of-doors  feeling  in  light  and  air  that  was 
astonishing.  His  large  trees  have  truth  of  mass  and  accuracy 
of  drawing,  and  his  foregrounds  are  painted  with  solidity. 
He  was  a keen  student  of  nature,  and  drew  about  him  a num- 
ber of  landscape  painters  at  Norwich,  who  formed  the  Nor- 
wich School.  Crome  was  its  leader,  and  the  school  made  its 
influence  felt  upon  English  landscape  painting.  Cotman 
(1782-1842)  was  the  best  painter  of  the  group  after  Crome, 
a man  who  depicted  landscape  and  harbor  scenes  in  a style 
that  recalls  Girtin  and  Turner. 

The  most  complete,  full-rounded  landscapist  in  England 
was  John  Constable  (1776-1837).  His  foreign  bias,  such  as 
it  was,  came  from  a study  of  the  Dutch  masters.  There 
were  two  sources  from  which  the  English  landscapists  drew. 
Those  who  were  inclined  to  the  ideal,  men  like  Wilson, 
Calcott  (1779-1844),  and  Turner,  drew  from  the  Italian  of 
Poussin  and  Claude  ; those  who  were  content  to  do  nature 
in  her  real  dress,  men  like  Gainsborough  and  Constable, 
drew  from  the  Dutch  of  Hobbema  and  his  contemporaries. 
A certain  sombreness  of  color  and  manner  of  composition 
show  in  Constable  that  may  be  attributed  to  Holland  ; but 


2 $2  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 

these  were  slight  features  as  compared  with  the  originality 
of  the  man.  He  was  a close  student  of  nature  who  painted 
what  he  saw  in  English  country  life, 
especially  about  Hampstead,  and  paint- 
ed it  with  a knowledge  and  an  artistic 
sensitiveness  never  surpassed  in  Eng- 
land. The  rural  feeling  was  strong 
with  him,  and  his  evident  pleasure  in 
simple  scenes  is  readily  communica- 
ted to  the  spectator.  There  is  no  at- 
tempt at  the  grand  or  the  heroic.  He 
never  cared  much  for  mountains  or 
water,  but  was  fond  of  cultivated  up- 
lands, trees,  bowling  clouds,  and  torn 
skies.  Bursts  of  sunlight,  storms,  at- 
mospheres, all  pleased  him.  With  de- 
tail he  was  little  concerned.  He  saw 
landscape  in  large  patches  of  form  and 
color,  and  so  painted  it.  His  handling 
was  broad  and  solid,  and  at  times  a lit- 
tle heavy.  His  light  was  often  forced 
by  sharp  contrast  with  shadows,  and 
often  his  pictures  appear  spotty  from 
isolated  glitters  of  light  strewn  here 
and  there.  In  color  he  helped  eliminate  the  brown  land- 
scape and  substituted  in  its  place  the  green  and  blue  of 
nature.  In  atmosphere  he  was  excellent.  His  influence 
upon  English  art  was  impressive,  and  in  1824  the  ex- 
hibition at  Paris  of  his  Hay  Wain,  together  with  some 
work  by  Bonington  and  Fielding  had  a decided  effect  upon 
the  then  rising  landscape  school  of  France.  The  French 
realized  that  nature  lay  at  the  bottom  of  Constable’s  art,  and 
they  profited,  not  by  imitating  Constable,  but  by  studying 
his  nature  model. 

Bonington  (1801-1828)  died  young,  and  though  of  English 


FIG.  99. — BURNE-JONES. 
FLAMMA  VESTALIS. 


BRITISH  PAINTING. 


253 


parents  his  training  was  essentially  French,  and  he  really 
belonged  to  the  French  school,  an  associate  of  Delacroix. 
His  study  of  the  Venetians  turned  his  talent  toward  warm 
coloring,  in  which  he  excelled.  In  landscape  his  broad 
handling  was  somewhat  related  to  that  of  Constable,  and 
from  the  fact  of  their  works  appearing  together  in  the  Salon 
of  1824  they  are  often  spoken  of  as  influencers  of  the  mod- 
ern French  landscape  painters. 

Turner  (1775-1851)  is  the  best  known  name  in  English 
art.  His  celebrity  is  somewhat  disproportionate  to  his  real 
merits,  though  it  is  impossible  to  deny  his  great  ability.  He 
was  a man  learned  in  all  the  forms  of  nature  and  schooled  in 
all  the  formulas  of  art  ; yet  he  was  not  a profound  lover  of 
nature  nor  a faithful  recorder  of  what  things  he  saw  in  nat- 
ure, except  in  his  early  days.  In  the  bulk  of  his  work  he 
shows  the  traditions  of  Claude,  with  additions  of  his  own. 
His  taste  was  classic  (he  possessed  all  the  knowledge  and 
the  belongings  of  the  historical  landscape),  and  he  delighted 
in  great  stretches  of  country  broken  by  sea-shores,  rivers, 
high  mountains,  fine  buildings,  and  illumined  by  blazing 
sunlight  and  gorgeous  skies.  His  composition  was  at  times 
grotesque  in  imagination  ; his  light  was  usually  bewildering 
in  intensity  and  often  unrelieved  by  shadows  of  sufficient 
depth  ; his  tone  was  sometimes  faulty  ; and  in  color  he  was 
not  always  harmonious,  but  inclined  to  be  capricious,  un- 
even, showing  fondness  for  arbitrary  schemes  of  color.  The 
object  of  his  work  seems  to  have  been  to  dazzle,  to  impress 
with  a wilderness  of  lines  and  hues,  to  overawe  by  imposing 
scale  and  grandeur.  His  paintings  are  impressive,  decora- 
tively  splendid,  but  they  often  smack  of  the  stage,  and  are 
more  frequently  grandiloquent  than  grand.  His  early  works, 
especially  in  water-colors,  where  he  shows  himself  a follower 
of  Girtin,  are  much  better  than  his  later  canvases  in  oil, 
many  of  which  have  changed  color.  The  water-colors  are 
carefully  done,  subdued  in  color,  and  true  in  light.  From 


254 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


1802,  or  thereabouts,  to  1830  was  his  second  period,  in 
which  Italian  composition  and  much  color  were  used.  The 
last  twenty  years  of  his  life  he  inclined  to  the  bizarre , and 
turned  his  canvases  into  almost  incoherent  color  masses. 
He  had  an  artistic  feeling  for  composition,  linear  perspec- 
tive, and  the  sweep  of  horizon  lines  ; skies  and  hills  he  knew 
and  drew  with  power  ; color  he  comprehended  only  as  deco- 
ration ; and  light  he  distorted  for  effect.  Yet  with  all  his 
shortcomings  Turner  was  an  artist  to  be  respected  and  ad- 
mired. He  knew  his  craft,  in  fact,  knew  it  so  well  that  he 
relied  too  much  on  artificial  effects,  drew  away  from  the 
model  of  nature,  and  finally  passed  into  the  extravagant. 

THE  WATER-COLORISTS:  About  the  beginning  of  this  cen- 
tury a school  of  water-colorists,  founded  originally  by  Cozens 
(1752-1799)  and  Girtin  (1775-1802),  came  into  prominence 
and  developed  English  art  in  a new  direction.  It  began 
to  show  with  a new  force  the  transparency  of  skies,  the 
luminosity  of  shadows,  the  delicacy  and  grace  of  clouds, 
the  brilliancy  of  light  and  color.  Cozens  and  Blake  were 
primitives  in  the  use  of  the  medium,  but  Stothard  ( 1 755— 
1 834)  employed  it  with  much  sentiment,  charm,  and  plein-air 
effect.  Turner  was  quite  a master  of  it,  and  his  most  per- 
manent work  was  done  with  it.  Later  on,  when  he  rather 
abandoned  form  to  follow  color,  he  also  abandoned  water- 
color  for  oils.  Fielding  (1787-1849)  used  water-color 
effectively  in  giving  large  feeling  for  space  and  air,  and  also 
for  fogs  and  mists  ; Prout  (1  783-1852)  employed  it  in  ar- 
chitectural drawings  of  the  principal  cathedrals  of  Europe  ; 
and  Cox  (1783-1859),  Dewint  (1784-1849),  Hunt  (1790- 
1864),  Cattermole  ( 1 800- 1 868),  Lewis  (1805-1876),  men 
whose  names  only  can  be  mentioned,  all  won  recognition 
with  this  medium.  Water-color  drawing  is  to-day  said  to 
be  a department  of  art  that  expresses  the  English  pictorial 
feeling  better  than  any  other,  though  this  is  not  an  undis- 
puted statement. 


BRITISH  PAINTING.  255 

Perhaps  the  most  important  movement  in  English  paint- 
ing of  recent  times  was  that  which  took  the  name  of 

PBE-RAPHAELITISM : It  was  started  about  1847,  primarily 
by  Rossetti  (1^28-1882),  Holman  Hunt  (1827-),  and  Sir  John 
Millais  (1829-1896),  associated  with  several  sculptors  and 
poets,  seven  in  all.  It  was  an  emulation  of  the  sincerity, 


FIG.  IOO. — LEIGHTON.  HELEN  OF  TROY. 


the  loving  care,  and  the  scrupulous  exactness  in  truth  that 
characterized  the  Italian  painters  before  Raphael.  Its  advo- 
cates, including  Mr.  Ruskin  the  critic,  maintained  that 
after  Raphael  came  that  fatal  facility  in  art  which  seeking- 
grace  of  composition  lost  truth  of  fact,  and  that  the  proper 
course  for  modern  painters  was  to  return  to  the  sincerity 
and  veracity  of  the  early  masters.  Hence  the  name  pre-Ra- 


256 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


phaelitism,  and  the  signatures  on  their  early  pictures,  P.  R. 
B.,  pre-Raphaelite  Brother.  To  this  attempt  to  gain  the 
true  regardless  of  the  sensuous,  was  added  a morbidity  of 
thought  mingled  with  mysticism,  a moral  and  religious  pose, 
and  a studied  simplicity.  Some  of  the  painters  of  the 
Brotherhood  went  even  so  far  as  following  the  habits  of  the 
early  Italians,  seeking  retirement  from  the  world  and  carry- 
ing with  them  a Gothic  earnestness  of  air.  There  is  no 
doubt  about  the  sincerity  that  entered  into  this  movement. 
It  was  an  honest  effort  to  gain  the  true,  the  good,  and  as  a 
result,  the  beautiful ; but  it  was  no  less  a striven-after  hon- 
esty and  an  imitated  earnestness.  The  Brotherhood  did 
not  last  for  long,  the  members  drifted  from  each  other  and 
began  to  paint  each  after  his  own  style,  and  pre-Raphaelitism 
passed  away  as  it  had  arisen,  though  not  without  leaving 
a powerful  stamp  on  English  art,  especially  in  decoration. 

Rossetti,  an  Italian  by  birth  though  English  by  adop- 
tion, was  the  type  of  the  Brotherhood.  He  was  more  of  a 
poet  than  a painter,  took  most  of  his  subjects  from  Dante, 
and  painted  as  he  wrote,  in  a mystical  romantic  spirit.  He 
was  always  of  a retiring  disposition  and  never  exhibited 
publicly  after  he  was  twenty-eight  years  of  age.  As  a 
draughtsman  he  was  awkward  in  line  and  not  always  true  in 
modelling.  In  color  he  was  superior  to  his  associates  and 
had  considerable  decorative  feeling.  The  shortcoming  of 
his  art,  as  with  that  of  the  others  of  the  Brotherhood,  was 
that  in  seeking  truth  of  detail  he  lost  truth  of  ensemble.  This 
is  perhaps  better  exemplified  in  the  works  of  Holman  Hunt. 
He  has  spent  infinite  pains  in  getting  the  truth  of  detail  in 
his  pictures,  has  travelled  in  the  East  and  painted  types,  cos- 
tumes, and  scenery  in  Palestine  to  gain  the  historic  truths 
of  his  Scriptural  scenes ; but  all  that  he  has  produced  has 
been  little  more  than  a survey,  a report,  a record  of  the  facts, 
He  has  not  made  a picture.  The  insistence  upon  every  de- 
tail has  isolated  all  the  facts  and  left  them  isolated  in  the 


BRITISH  PAINTING. 


257 


picture.  In  seeking  the  minute  truths  he  has  overlooked 
the  great  truths  of  light,  air,  and  setting.  His  color  has 
always  been  crude,  his  values  or  relations  not  well  pre- 
served, and  his  brush-work  hard  and  tortured. 

Millais  showed  some  of  this  disjointed  effect  in  his  early 
work  when  he  was  a member  of  the  Brotherhood.  He  did 
not  hold  to  his  early  convictions  however,  and  soon  aban- 
doned the  pre-Raphaelite  methods  for  a more  conventional 
style.  He  has  painted  some  remarkable  portraits  and  some 
excellent  figure  pieces,  and  to-day  holds  high  rank  in  English 
art ; but  he  is  an  uneven  painter,  often  doing  weak,  harshly- 
colored  work.  Moreover,  the  English  tendency  to  tell  stories 
with  the  paint-brush  finds  in  Millais  a faithful  upholder.  At 
his  best  he  is  a strong  painter. 

Madox  Brown  (1821-1893)  never  joined  the  Brotherhood, 
though  his  leaning  was  toward  its  principles.  He  had  con- 
siderable dramatic  power,  with  which  he  illustrated  historic 
scenes,  and  among  contemporary  artists  stood  well.  The 
most  decided  influence  of  pre-Raphaelitism  shows  in  Burne- 
Jones  (1833 — ),  a pupil  of  Rossetti,  and  perhaps  the  most 
original  painter  now  living  * of  the  English  school.  From 
Rossetti  he  got  mysticism,  sentiment,  poetry,  and  from 
association  with  Swinburne  and  William  Morris,  the  poets, 
something  of  the  literary  in  art,  which  he  has  put  forth  with 
artistic  effect.  He  has  not  followed  the  Brotherhood  in  its 
pursuit  of  absolute  truth  of  fact,  but  has  used  facts  for  deco- 
rative effect  in  line  and  color.  His  ability  to  fill  a given 
space  gracefully,  shows  with  fine  results  in  his  pictures,  as 
in  his  stained-glass  designs.  He  is  a good  draughtsman  and 
a rather  rich  colorist,  but  in  brush-work  somewhat  labored, 
stippled,  and  unique  in  dryness.  He  is  a man  of  much  imag- 
ination, and  his  conceptions,  though  illustrative  of  litera- 
ture, do  not  suffer  thereby,  because  his  treatment  does  not 
sacrifice  the  artistic.  He  has  been  the  butt  of  consider- 
able shallow  laughter  from  time  to  time,  like  many  another 

* Died  1898. 


17 


258  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 

man  of  power.  Albert  Moore  (1840-1893),  a graceful  painter 
of  a decorative  ideal  type,  rather  follows  the  Rossetti-Burne- 
Jones  example,  and  is  an  illustration  of  the  influence  of 
pre-Raphaelitism. 

OTHER  FIGURE  AND  PORTRAIT  PAINTERS:  Among  the  con- 
temporary painters  Sir  Frederick  Leighton  (1830-1896), 
President  of  the  Royal  Academy,  is  ranked  as  a fine  aca- 
demic draughtsman,  but  not  a man  with  the  color-sense  or 
the  brushman’s  quality  in  his  work.  Watts  (1818-)  is  per- 
haps an  inferior  technician,  and  in  color  is  often  sombre  and 

dirty  ; but  he  is  a man  of  much 
imagination,  occasionally  rises  to 
grandeur  in  conception,  and  has 
painted  some  superb  portraits, 
notably  the  one  of  Walter  Crane. 
Orchardson  (1835-)  is  more  of  a 
painter,  pure  and  simple,  than  any 
of  his  contemporaries,  and  is  a 
knowing  if  somewhat  mannered 
colorist.  Erskine  Nicol  (1825-), 
Faed*  (1826-),  Calderon  (1833-), 
Boughton  (1834-),  Frederick 
Walker  (1840-1875),  Stanhope 
Forbes,  Stott  of  Oldham  and  in 
portraiture  Holl  (1845-1890)  and 
Herkomer  may  be  mentioned. 

LANDSCAPE  AND  MARINE  PAINT- 
ERS: In  the  department  of  land- 
scape there  are  many  painters  in 
England  of  contemporary  impor- 
tance. Vicat  Cole  (1833-1893)  had 
considerable  exaggerated  reputa- 
tion as  a depicter  of  sunsets  and  twilights  ; Cecil  Lawson 
(1851-1882)  gave  promise  of  great  accomplishment,  and 
lived  long  enough  to  do  some  excellent  work  in  the  style 

* Died  1900.  ' 


FIG.  IOI. — WATTS.  LOVE  AND 
DEATH. 


BRITISH  PAINTING. 


259 


of  the  French  Rousseau,  mingled  with  an  influence  from 
Gainsborough  ; Alfred  Parsons  is  a little  hard  and  precise 
in  his  work,  but  one  of  the  best  of  the  living  men  ; and 
W.  L.  Wyllie  is  a painter  of  more  than  average  merit.  In 
marines  Hook  (1819-)  belongs  to  the  older  school,  and  is 
not  entirely  satisfactory.  The  most  modern  and  the  best 
sea-painter  in  England  is  Henry  Moore  (1831-1895),  a man 
who  paints  well  and  gives  the  large  feeling  of  the  ocean 
with  fine  color  qualities. 

MODERN  SCOTCH  SCHOOL:  There  is  at  the  present  time  a 
school  of  art  in  Scotland  that  seems  to  have  little  or  no 
affinity  with  the  contemporary  school  of  England.  Its 
painters  are  more  akin  to  the  Dutch  and  the  French,  and  in 
their  coloring  resemble,  in  depth  and  quality,  the  work  of 
Delacroix.  Much  of  their  art  is  far  enough  removed  from 
the  actual  appearance  of  nature,  but  it  is  strong  in  the  sen- 
timent of  color  and  in  decorative  effect.  The  school  is 
represented  by  such  men  as  James  Guthrie,  E.  A.  Walton, 
James  Hamilton,  George  Henry,  E.  A.  Hornell,  Lavery,  Mel- 
ville, Crawhall,  Roche,  Lawson,  McBride,  Morton,  Reid-Mur- 
ray,  Spence,  Paterson. 

PRINCIPAL  WORKS:  English  art  cannot  be  seen  to  advantage,  out- 
side of  England.  In  the  Metropolitan  Museum,  N.  Y.,  and  in  private 
collections  like  that  of  Mr.  William  H.  Fuller  in  New  York,*  there  are 
some  good  examples  of  the  older  men — Reynolds,  Constable,  Gains- 
borough, and  their  contemporaries.  In  the  Louvre  there  are  some  indif- 
ferent Constables  and  some  good  Boningtons.  In  England  the  best  collec- 
tion is  in  the  National  Gallery.  Next  to  this  the  South  Kensington 
Museum  for  Constable  sketches.  Elsewhere  the  Glasgow,  Edinburgh, 
Liverpool,  Windsor  galleries,  and  the  private  collections  of  the  late  Sir 
Richard  Wallace,  the  Duke  of  Westminster,  and  others.  Turner  is  well 
represented  in  the  National  Gallery,  though  his  oils  have  suffered  through 
time  and  the  use  of  fugitive  pigments.  For  the  living  men,  their  work 
may  be  seen  in  the  yearly  exhibitions  at  the  Royal  Academy  and  elsewhere. 
There  are  comparatively  few  English  pictures  in  America. 

* Dispersed,  1898. 


CHAPTER  XX. 


AMERICAN  PAINTING. 

Books  Recommended:  American  Art  Review ; The  Art 
Review ; Benjamin,  Contemporary  Art  in  America;  Century 
Magazine ; Clement  and  Hutton,  Artists  of  the  Nineteenth 
Century  ; Cummings,  Historic  Annals  of  the  National  Academy 
of  Design ; Downes,  Boston  Painters  (in  Atlantic  Monthly  Vol. 
62)  ; Dunlap,  Arts  of  Design  in  United  States ; Flagg,  Life  and 
Letters  of  Washington  Alls  ton  ; Galt,  Life  of  l Vest ; Knowl- 
ton,  W.  M.  Hunt ; Lester,  The  Artists  of  America ; Mason, 
Life  and  Works  of  Gilbert  Stuart ; Perkins,  Copley;  Scribner's 
Magazine ; Sheldon,  American  Painters ; Tuckerman,  Book  of 
the  Artists;  Van  Dyke,  Art  for  Art's  Sake ; Van  Rens- 
selaer, Six  Portraits ; Ware,  Lectures  on  Allston;  White,  A 
Sketch  of  Chester  A.  Harding . 

AMERICAN  ART:  It  is  hardly  possible  to  predicate  much 
about  the  environment  as  it  affects  art  in  America.  The 
result  of  the  climate,  the  temperament,  and  the  mixture  of 
nations  in  the  production  or  non-production  of  painting  in 
America  cannot  be  accurately  Computed  at  this  early  stage 
of  history.  One  thing  only  is  certain,  and  that  is,  that  the 
building  of  a new  commonwealth  out  of  primeval  nature  does 
not  call  for  the  production  of  art  in  the  early  periods  of  de- 
velopment. The  first  centuries  in  the  history  of  America 
were  devoted  to  securing  the  necessities  of  life,  the  ener- 
gies of  the  time  were  of  a practical  nature,  and  art  as  an 
indigenous  product  was  hardly  known. 

After  the  Revolution,  and  indeed  before  it,  a hybrid 
portraiture,  largely  borrowed  from  England,  began  to  appear, 
and  after  1825  there  was  an  attempt  at  landscape  painting; 


AMERICAN  PAINTING. 


261 


but  painting  as  an  art  worthy  of  very  serious  considera- 
tion, came  in  only  with  the  sudden  growth  in  wealth  and 
taste  following  the  War  of  the  Rebellion  and  the  Centennial 
Exhibition  of  1876.  The  best  of  American  art  dates  from 
about  1878,  though  during  the  earlier  years  there  were 
painters  of  note  who  cannot  be  passed  over  unmentioned. 

THE  EARLY  PAINTERS:  The  “limner,”  or  the  man  who 
could  draw  and  color  a portrait,  seems  to  have  existed  very 
early  in  American  history.  Smibert  (1684-1751),  a Scotch 
painter,  who  settled  in  Boston,  and  Watson  (1685  ?— 1 768), 
another  Scotchman,  who  settled  in  New  Jersey,  were  of  this 
class — men  capable  of  giving  a likeness,  but  little  more. 
They  were  followed  by  English  painters  of  even  less  conse- 
quence. Then  came  Copley  (1737-1815)  and  West  (1738- 
1820),  with  whom  painting  in  America  really  began.  They 
were  good  men  for  their  time,  but  it  must  be  borne  in  mind 
that  the  times  for  art  were  not  at  all  favorable.  West  was 
a man  about  whom  all  the  infant  prodigy  tales  have  been 
told,  but  he  never  grew  to  be  a 
great  artist.  He  was  ambitious 
beyond  his  power,  indulged  in 
theatrical  composition,  was  hot 
in  color,  and  never  was  at  ease 
in  handling  the  brush.  Most  of 
his  life  was  passed  in  England, 
where  he  had  a vogue,  was  elect- 
ed President  of  the  Royal  Acad- 
emy, and  became  practically  a 
British  painter.  Copley  was 
more  of  an  American  than  West, 
and  more  of  a painter.  Some 
of  his  portraits  are  exceptionally  fine,  and  his  figure  pieces, 
like  Charles  I.  demanding  the  Five  Members  of  House  of  Com- 
mons are  excellent  in  color  and  composition.  C.  W.  Peale 
(1741-1827),  a pupil  of  both  Copley  and  West,  was  perhaps 


CHRIST.  HAMPTON  CT. 


262 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


more  fortunate  in  having  celebrated  characters  like  Wash- 
ington for  sitters  than  in  his  art.  Trumbull  (1756-1843) 
preserved  on  canvas  the  Revolutionary  history  of  America 

and,  all  told,  did  it 
very  well.  Some  of 
his  compositions, 
portraits,  and  min- 
iature heads  in  the 
Yale  Art  School  at 
New  Haven  are 
drawn  and  painted 
in  a masterful  man- 
ner and  are  as  valu- 
able for  their  art  as 
for  the  incidents 
which  they  portray. 
Gilbert  Stuart 

(1  7 5 5 - 1 8 2 8)  was 
the  best  portrait- 
painter  of  all  the 
early  men,  and  his 
work  holds  very 
high  rank  even  in 
the  schools  of  to- 
day. He  was  one 
of  the  first  in  American  art-history  to  show  skilful  accuracy  of 
the  brush,  a good  knowledge  of  color,  and  some  artistic  sense 
of  dignity  and  carriage  in  the  sitter.  He  was  not  always  a 
good  draughtsman,  and  he  had  a manner  of  laying  on  pure 
colors  without  blending  them  that  sometimes  produced 
sharpness  in  modelling ; but  as  a general  rule  he  painted  a 
portrait  with  force  and  with  truth.  He  was  a pupil  of  Alex- 
ander, a Scotchman,  and  afterward  an  assistant  to  West. 
He  settled  in  Boston,  and  during  his  life  painted  most  of  the 
great  men  of  his  time,  including  Washington. 


FIG.  103. — GILBERT  STUART.  WASHINGTON  (UNFINISHED). 
BOSTON  MUS. 


AMERICAN  PAINTING. 


263 


Yanderlyn  ( i 776-1852)  met  with  adversity  all  his  life  long, 
and  perhaps  never  expressed  himself  fully.  He  was  a pupil 
of  Stuart,  studied  in  Paris  and  Italy,  and  his  associations 
with  Aaron  Burr  made  him  quite  as  famous  as  his  pictures. 
Washington  Allston  (1 779-1 843)  was  a painter  whom  the 
Bostonians  have  ranked  high  in  their  art-history,  but  he 
hardly  deserved  such  position.  Intellectually  he  was  a man 
of  lofty  and  poetic  aspirations,  but  as  an  artist  he  never  had 
the  painter’s  sense  or  the  painter’s  skill.  He  was  an  aspira- 
tion rather  than  a consummation.  He  cherished  notions 
about  ideals,  dealt  in 
imaginative  allego- 
ries, and  failed  to  ob- 
serve the  pictorial 
character  of  the 
world  about  him.  As 
a result  of  this,  and 
poor  artistic  training, 
his  art  had  too  little 
basis  on  nature, 
though  it  was  very 
often  satisfactory  as 
decoration.  Rem- 
brandt Peale  ( 1 787— 
i860),  like  his  father, 
was  a painter  of  Wash- 
ington portraits  of  me- 
diocre quality.  Jarvis 
(1780-1834)  and  Sul- 
ly (1783-1872)  were 

both  British  born,  but  fig.  104. — w.  m.  hunt,  lute  player. 

their  work  belongs 

here  in  America,  where  most  of  their  days  were  spent.  Sully 
could  paint  a very  good  portrait  occasionally,  though  he  al- 
ways inclined  toward  the  weak  and  the  sentimental,  especially 


26 4 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


in  his  portraits  of  women.  Leslie  (1794-1859)  and  Newton 
(1  795- 1 835)  were  Americans,  but,  like  West  and  Copley,  they 
belong  in  their  art  more  to  England  than  to  America.  In  all 
the  early  American  painting  the  British  influence  may  be 
traced,  with  sometimes  an  inclination  to  follow  Italy  in  large 
compositions. 

THE  MIDDLE  PERIOD  in  American  art  dates  from  1825 
to  about  1878.  During  that  time,  something  distinctly 
American  began  to  appear  in  the  landscape  work  of  Doughty 
( 1 793~ 1 856)  and  Thomas  Cole  (1801-1848).  Both  men  were 
substantially  self-taught,  though  Cole  received  some  instruc- 
tion from  a portrait-painter  named  Stein.  Cole  during  his 
life  was  famous  for  his  Hudson  River  landscapes,  and  for 
two  series  of  pictures  called  The  Voyage  of  Life  and  The 
Course  of  Empire.  The  latter  were  really  epic  poems  upon 
canvas,  done  with  much  blare  of  color  and  literary  explana- 
tion in  the  title.  His  best  work  was  in  pure  landscape, 
which  he  pictured  with  considerable  accuracy  in  drawing, 
though  it  was  faulty  in  lighting  and  gaudy  in  coloring.  Brill- 
iant autumn  scenes  were  his  favorite  subjects.  His  work 
had  the  merit  of  originality  and,  moreover,  it  must  be  re- 
membered that  Cole  was  one  of  the  beginners  in  American 
landscape  art.  Durand  (1796-1886)  was  an  engraver  until 
1835,  when  he  began  painting  portraits,  and  afterward  de- 
veloped landscape  with  considerable  power.  He  was  usu- 
ally simple  in  subject  and  realistic  in  treatment,  with 
not  so  much  insistence  upon  brilliant  color  as  some  of  his 
contemporaries.  Kensett  (1818-1872)  was  a follower  in 
landscape  of  the  so-called  Hudson  River  School  of  Cole 
and  others,  though  he  studied  seven  years  in  Europe.  His 
color  was  rather  warm,  his  air  hazy,  and  the  general  effect 
of  his  landscape  that  of  a dreamy  autumn  day  with  poetic 
suggestions.  F.  E.  Church  (1826-*)  was  a pupil  of  Cole, 
and  has  followed  him  in  seeking  the  grand  and  the  startling 
in  mountain  scenery.  With  Church  should  be  mentioned  a 

* Died,  1900. 


AMERICAN  PAINTING. 


265 


number  of  artists— -Hubbard  (1817-1888),  Hill  (1829-,)  Bier- 
stadt  (1830-)/  Thomas  Moran  (1837-) — who  have  achieved 
reputation  by  canvases  of  the  Rocky  Mountains  and  other 
expansive  scenes. 

Some  other  painters 
of  smaller  canvases 
belong  in  point  of 
time,  and  also  in 
spirit,  with  the  Hud- 
son River  landscap- 
ists—painters,  too,  of 
considerable  merit, 
as  David  Johnson 
(1827-),  Bristol 
( 1 826-),  Sandford  Gif- 
ford (1823-1880), 

McEntee  (1828-1891), 
and  Whittredge 
(1820-),  the  last  two 
very  good  portrayers 
of  autumn  scenes  ; A. 

H.  Wyant  (1836- 
1892),  one  of  the  best 
and  strongest  of  the 
American  landscapists  ; Bradford  (1830-1892)  and  W.  T. 
Richards  (1833-),  the  marine-painters. 

PORTRAIT,  HISTORY,  AND  GENRE-PAINTERS:  Contemporary 
with  the  early  landscapists  were  a number  of  figure-paint- 
ers, most  of  them  self-taught,  or  taught  badly  by  foreign 
or  native  artists,  and  yet  men  who  produced  creditable 
work.  Chester  Harding  (1792-1866)  was  one  of  the  early 
portrait-painters  of  this  century  who  achieved  enough  celeb- 
rity in  Boston  to  be  the  subject  of  what  was  called  “the 
Harding  craze.”  Elliott  (1812-1868)  was  a pupil  of  Trum- 
bull, and  a man  of  considerable  reputation,  as  was  also  I11- 

* Died,  1902. 


FIG.  105. — EASTMAN  JOHNSON.  CHURNING. 


266 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


man  (1801-1846),  a portrait  and  genre- painter  with  a 
smooth,  detailed  brush.  Page  (1811-1885),  Baker  (1821- 
1 880),  Huntington  (1 8 1 6-),  the  third  President  of  the  Acad- 
emy of  Design  ; Healy  (1808-*),  a portrait-painter  of  more 
than  average  excellence;  Mount  (1 807-1868),  one  of  the 
earliest  of  American  genre- painters,  were  all  men  of  note  in 
this  middle  period. 

Leutze  (1 81 6-1 868)  was  a German  by  birth  but  an  Ameri- 
can by  adoption,  who  painted  many  large  historical  scenes 
of  the  American  Revolution,  such  as  Washington  Crossing 
the  Delaware,  besides  many  scenes  taken  from  European 
history.  He  was  a pupil  of  Lessing  at  Dusseldorf,  and  had 
something  to  do  with  introducing  Dusseldorf  methods  into 
America.  He  was  a painter  of  ability,  if  at  times  hot  in 
color  and  dry  in  handling.  Occasionally  he  did  a fine  por- 
trait, like  the  Seward  in  the  Union  League  Club,  New  York. 

During  this  period,  in  addition  to  the  influence  of  Dus- 
seldorf and  Rome  upon  American  art,  there  came  the  in- 
fluence of  French  art  with  Hicks  (1823-1890)  and  Hunt 
(1824-1879),  both  of  them  pupils  of  Couture  at  Paris,  and 
Hunt  also  of  Millet  at  Barbizon.  Hunt  was  the  real  intro- 
ducer of  Millet  and  the  Barbizon-Fontainebleau  artists 
to  the  American  people.  In  1855  he  established  himself  at 
Boston,  had  a large  number  of  pupils,  and  met  with  great 
success  as  a teacher.  He  was  a painter  of  ability,  but 
perhaps  his  greatest  influence  was  as  a teacher  and  an  in- 
structor in  what  was  good  art  as  distinguished  from  what 
was  false  and  meretricious.  He  certainly  was  the  first 
painter  in  America  who  taught  catholicity  of  taste,  truth 
and  sincerity  in  art,  and  art  in  the  artist  rather  than  in  the 
subject.  Contemporary  with  Hunt  lived  George  Fuller 
(1822-1884),  a unique  man  in  American  art  for  the  senti- 
ment he  conveyed  in  his  pictures  by  means  of  color  and  at- 
mosphere. Though  never  proficient  in  the  grammar  of  art 
he  managed  by  blendings  of  color  to  suggest  certain  senti- 

* Died  1894. 


AMERICAN  PAINTING.  267 

ments  regarding  light  and  air  that  have  been  rightly  esteemed 
poetic. 

THE  THIRD  PERIOD  in  American  art  began  immediately 
after  the  Centennial  Exhibition  at  Philadelphia  in  1876. 
Undoubtedly  the  display  of  art,  both  foreign  and  domestic, 
at  that  time,  together  with  the  national  prosperity  and  great 
growth  of  the  United  States  had  much  to  do  with  stimulat- 
ing activity  in  painting.  Many  young  men  at  the  begin- 


FIG.  106. — INNESS.  LANDSCAPE. 


ning  of  this  period  went  to  Europe  to  study  in  the  studios 
at  Munich,  and  later  on  at  Paris.  Before  1880  some  of  them 
had  returned  to  the  United  States,  bringing  with  them 
knowledge  of  the  technical  side  of  art,  which  they  immedi- 
ately began  to  give  out  to  many  pupils.  Gradually  the  in- 
fluence of  the  young  men  from  Munich  and  Paris  spread. 
The  Art  Students’  League,  founded  in  1875,  was  incorporated 
in  1878,  and  the  Society  of  American  Artists  was  established 
in  the  same  year.  Societies  and  painters  began  to  spring 
up  all  over  the  country,  and  as  a result  there  is  in  the  United 
States  to-day  an  artist  body  technically  as  well  trained  and 


268  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 

in  spirit  as  progressive  as  in  almost  any  country  of  Europe. 
The  late  influence  shown  in  painting  has  been  largely  a 
French  influence,  and  the  American  artists  have  been  accused 
from  time  to  time  of  echoing  French  methods.  The  accu- 
sation is  true  in  part.  Paris  is  the  centre  of  all  art-teach- 
ing to-day,  and  the  Americans,  in  common  with  the  European 
nations,  accept  French  methods,  not  because  they  are 
French,  but  because  they  are  the  best  extant.  In  subjects 
and  motives,  however,  the  American  school  is  as  original  as 
any  school  can  be  in  this  cosmopolitan  age. 

PORTRAIT,  FIGURE,  AND  GENRE  PAINTERS  (1878-1894):  It 

must  not  be  inferred  that  the  painters  now  prominent  in 
American  art  are  all  young  men  schooled  since  1876.  On 
the  contrary,  some  of  the  best  of  them  are  men  past  middle 
life  who  began  painting  long  before  1876,  and  have  by  dint 
of  observation  and  prolonged  study  continued  with  the 
modern  spirit.  For  example,  Winslow  Homer  (1836-)  is 
one  of  the  strongest  and  most  original  of  all  the  American 
artists,  a man  who  never  had  the  advantage  of  the  high- 
est technical  training,  yet  possesses  a feeling  for  color,  a 
dash  and  verve  in  execution,  an  originality  in  subject,  and 
an  individuality  of  conception  that  are  unsurpassed.  East- 
man Johnson  (1824-)  is  one  of  the  older  portrait  and  figure- 
painters  who  stands  among  the  younger  generations  with- 
out jostling,  because  he  has  in  measure  kept  himself  informed 
with  modern  thought  and  method.  He  is  a good,  conserva- 
tive painter,  possessed  of  taste,  judgment,  and  technical 
ability.  Elihu  Vedder  (1836-)  is  more  of  a draughtsman 
than  a brushman.  His  color-sense  is  not  acute  nor  his 
handling  free,  but  he  has  an  imagination  which,  if  somewhat 
more  literary  than  pictorial,  is  nevertheless  very  effective. 
John  La  Farge  (1835-)  and  Albert  Ryder  (1847-)  are  both  col- 
orists, and  La  Farge  in  artistic  feeling  is  a man  of  much 
power.  Almost  all  of  his  pictures  have  fine  decorative 
quality  in  line  and  color  and  are  thoroughly  pictorial. 


AMERICAN  PAINTING. 


269 


The  “young  men,”  so-called,  though  some  of  them  are 
now  on  toward  middle  life,  are  perhaps  more  facile  in 
brush-work  and  better  trained  draughtsmen  than  those  we 
have  just  mentioned.  They  have  cultivated  vivacity  of 
style  and  cleverness  in  statement,  frequently  at  the  ex- 
pense of  the  larger  qualities  of  art.  Sargent  (1856-)  is,  per- 
haps, the  most  considerable  portrait-painter  now  living,  a 
man  of  unbounded  resources  technically  and  fine  natural 
abilities.  He  is  draughtsman,  colorist,  brushman — in  fact, 
almost  everything  in  art  that  can  be  cultivated.  His  taste 
is  not  yet  mature,  and  he  is  just  now  given  to  dashing 
effects  that  are  more  clever  than  permanent ; but  that  he  is 
a master  in  portraiture  has  already  been  abundantly  demon- 


FIG.  107. — WINSLOW  HOMER,  UNDERTOW. 


strated.  Chase  (1849-)  is  also  an  exceptionally  good  por- 
trait painter,  and  he  handles  the  genre  subject  with  brilliant 
color  and  a swift,  sure  brush.  In  brush-work  he  is  exceed- 


270 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


ingly  clever,  and  is  an  excellent  technician  in  almost  every 
respect.  Not  always  profound  in  matter  he  generally  man- 
ages to  be  entertaining  in  method.  Blum  ( 1 857-)  is  well 
known  to  magazine  readers  through  many  black-and-white 
illustrations.  He  is  also  a painter  of  genre  subjects  taken 
from  many  lands,  and  handles  his  brush  with  brilliancy  and 
force.  Dewing  ( 1 85  1 -)  is  a painter  with  a refined  sense  not 
only  in  form  but  in  color.  His  pictures  are  usually  small, 
but  exquisite  in  delicacy  and  decorative  charm.  Thayer 
(1849-)  is  fond  of  large  canvases,  a man  of  earnestness,  sin- 
cerity, and  imagination,  but  not  a good  draughtsman,  not 
a good  colorist,  and  a rather  clumsy  brushman.  He  has, 
however,  something  to  say,  and  in  a large  sense  is  an  ar- 
tist of  uncommon  ability.  Kenyon  Cox  (1  856-)  is  a draughts- 
man, with  a strong  command  of  line  and  taste  in  its  arrange- 
ment. He  is  not  a strong  colorist,  though  in  recent  work 
he  has  shown  a new  departure  in  this  feature  that  prom- 
ises well.  He  renders  the  nude  with  power,  and  is  fond  of 
the  allegorical  subject. 

The  number  of  good  portrait-painters  at  present  work- 
ing in  America  is  quite  large,  and  mention  can  be  made  of 
but  a few  in  addition  to  those  already  spoken  of — Lockwood, 
McLure  Hamilton,  Tarbell,  Beckwith,  Benson,  Vinton.  In 
figure  and  repainting  the  list  of  really  good  painters  could 
be  drawn  out  indefinitely,  and  again  mention  must  be  con- 
fined to  u few  only,  like  Simmons,  Shirlaw,  Smedley,  Brush, 
Millet,  Hassam,  Reid,  Wiles,  Mowbray,  Reinhart,  Blashfield, 
Metcalf,  Low,  C.  Y.  Turner. 

Most  of  the  men  whose  names  are  given  above  are  resi- 
dent in  America ; but,  in  addition,  there  is  a large  con- 
tingent of  young  men,  American  born  but  resident  abroad, 
who  can  hardly  be  claimed  by  the  American  school,  and 
yet  belong  to  it  as  much  as  to  any  school.  They  are  cos- 
mopolitan in  their  art,  and  reside  in  Paris,  Munich,  Lon- 
don, or  elsewhere,  as  the  spirit  moves  them.  Sargent,  the 


AMERICAN  PAINTING. 


2^1 


x> 


portrait-painter,  really  belongs  to  this  group,  as  does 
also  Whistler  (1834-*),  one  of  the  most  artistic  of  all  the 


moderns.  Whistler 
was  long  resident  in 
London,  but  has  now 
removed  to  Paris. 

He  belongs  to  no 
school,  and  such  art 
as  he  produces  is  pe- 
culiarly his  own,  save 
a leaven  of  influences 
from  Velasquez  and 
the  Japanese.  His 
art  is  the  perfection 
of  delicacy,  both  in 
color  and  in  line. 

Apparently  very 
sketchy,  it  is  in  real- 
ity the  maximum  of 
effect  with  the  mini- 
mum of  display.  It 
has  the  pictorial 
charm  of  mystery  and 
suggestiveness,  and 
the  technical  effect  of 
light,  air,  and  space. 

There  is  nothing  bet- 
ter produced  in  mod- 
ern painting  than  his 
present  work,  and  in 
earlier  years  he 
painted  portraits  like  fig.  108.— whistler,  white  girl. 

that  of  his  mother, 

which  are  justly  ranked  as  great  art.  E.  A.  Abbey  (1852-) 
is  better  known  by  his  pen-and-ink  work  than  by  his  paint- 


* Died,  1903. 


272 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


rison,  Hitchcock,  McEwen,  Melchers,  Pearce,  Julius  Stewart, 
Weeks  (1849-1903),  J.  W.  Alexander,  Walter  Gay,  Ser- 
geant Kendall  have  nothing  distinctly  American  about  their 
art.  It  is  semi-cosmopolitan  with  a leaning  toward  French 
methods.  There  are  also  some  American-born  painters  at 
Munich,  like  C.  E.  Ulrich ; Shannon  is  in  London  and  Coleman 
in  Italy. 


ings,  howbeit  he  has  done  good  work  in  color.  He  is  resi- 
dent in  England. 

In  Paris  there  are  many  American-born  painters,  who 
really  belong  more  with  the  French  school  than  the  Amer- 
ican. Bridgman  is  an  example,  and  Dannat,  Alexander  Har- 


FIG.  109. — SARGENT.  “ CARNATION  LILY,  LILY  ROSE.” 


AMERICAN  PAINTING. 


273 


LANDSCAPE  AND  MARINE  PAINTERS,  1878-1894:  In  the  de- 
partment of  landscape  America  has  had  since  1825  something 
distinctly  national,  and  has  at  this  day.  In  recent  years  the 
impressionist plein-air  school  of  France  has  influenced  many 
painters,  and  the  prismatic  landscape  is  quite  as  frequently 
seen  in  American  exhibitions  as  in  the  Paris  salons  ; but 
American  landscape  art  rather  dates  ahead  of  French  im- 
pressionism. The  strongest  landscapist  of  our  times,  George 
Inness  (1825-*),  is  not  a young  man  except  in  his  artistic  as- 
pirations. His  style  has  undergone  many  changes,  yet  still 
remains  distinctly  individual.  He  has  always  been  an  experi- 
menter and  an  uneven  painter,  at  times  doing  work  of  wonder- 
ful force,  and  then  again  falling  into  weakness.  The  solidity 
of  nature,  the  mass  and  bulk  of  landscape,  he  has  shown  with 
a power  second  to  none.  He  is  fond  of  the  sentiment  of 
nature’s  light,  air,  and  color,  and  has  put  it  forth  more  in  his 
later  than  in  his  earlier  canvases.  At  his  best,  he  is  one  of 
the  first  of  the  American  landscapists.  Among  his  con- 
temporaries Wyant  (already  mentioned),  Swain  Gifford, 
Colman,  Gay,  Shurtleff,  have  all  done  excellent  work  un- 
influenced by  foreign  schools  of  to-day.  Homer  Martin’s  f 
landscapes,  from  their  breadth  of  treatment,  are  popularly 
considered  rather  indifferent  work,  but  in  reality  they  are 
excellent  in  color  and  poetic  feeling. 

The  “young  men  ” again,  in  landscape  as  in  the  figure,  are 
working  in  the  modern  spirit,  though  in  substance  they  are 
based  on  the  traditions  of  the  older  American  landscape 
school.  There  has  been  much  achievement,  and  there  is  still 
greater  promise  in  such  landscapists  as  Tryon,  Platt,  Murphy, 
Dearth,  Crane,  Dewey,  Coffin,  Horatio  Walker,  and  others. 
Among  those  who  favor  the  so-called  impressionistic  view 
are  Weir,  Twachtman,  and  Robinson,  J three  landscape- 
painters  of  undeniable  power.  In  marines  Gedney  Bunce 
has  portrayed  many  Venetian  scenes  of  charming  color-tone, 
and  De  Haas  § has  long  been  known  as  a sea-painter  of  some 

* Died  1894.  t Died  1897.  { Died  1896.  §Died  1895. 

18 


274 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING. 


power,  duartley,  who  died  young,  was  brilliant  in  color 
and  broadly  realistic.  The  present  marine-painters  are 

Maynard,  Snell,  Rehn,  Butler,  Chapman. 


FIG.  ITO. — CHASE.  ALICE. 


PRINCIPAL  WORKS : The  works  of  the  early  American  painters  are  to 
be  seen  principally  in  the  Boston  Museum  of  Fine  Arts,  the  Athenaeum, 
Boston  Mus.,  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.,  Harvard  College,  Redwood  Library,  New- 
port, Metropolitan  Mus.,  Lenox  and  Hist.  Soc.  Libraries,  the  City  Hall, 
Century  Club,  Chamber  of  Commerce,  National  Acad,  of  Design,  N.  Y. 
In  New  Haven,  at  Yale  School  of  Fine  Arts,  in  Philadelphia  at  Penna. 
Acad,  of  Fine  Arts,  in  Rochester  Powers’s  Art  Gal.,  in  Washington  Cor- 
coran Gal.  and  the  Capitol. 


AMERICAN  PAINTING. 


275 


The  works  of  the  younger  men  are  seen  in  the  exhibitions  held  from  year 
to  year  at  the  Academy  of  Design,  the  Society  of  American  Artists,  N.  Y., 
in  Philadelphia,  Chicago,  Boston,  and  elsewhere  throughout  the  country. 
Some  of  their  works  belong  to  permanent  institutions  like  the  Metropoli- 
tan Mus.,  the  Pennsylvania  Acad.,  the  Art  Institute  of  Chicago,  but  there 
is  no  public  collection  of  pictures  that  represents  American  art  as  a whole. 
Mr.  T.  B.  Clarke,  of  New  York,  had  perhaps  as  complete  a collection  of 
paintings  by  contemporary  American  artists  as  anyone. 


POSTSCRIPT. 


SCATTERING  SCHOOLS  AND  INFLUENCES  IN  ART. 

In  this  brief  history  of  painting  it  has  been  necessary  to 
omit  some  countries  and  some  painters  that  have  not 
seemed  to  be  directly  connected  with  the  progress  or  de- 
velopment of  painting  in  the  western  world.  The  arts  of 
China  and  Japan,  while  well  worthy  of  careful  chronicling, 
are  somewhat  removed  from  the  arts  of  the  other  nations 
and  from  our  study.  Moreover,  they  are  so  positively  dec- 
orative that  they  should  be  treated  under  the  head  of  Dec- 
oration, though  it  is  not  to  be  denied  that  they  are  also  real- 
istically expressive.  Portugal  has  had  some  history  in  the 
art  of  painting,  but  it  is  slight  and  so  bound  up  with  Spanish 
and  Flemish  influences  that  its  men  do  not  stand  out  as  a 
distinct  school.  This  is  true  in  measure  of  Russian  paint- 
ing. The  early  influences  with  it  were  Byzantine  through  the 
Greek  Church.  In  late  years  what  has  been  produced 
favors  the  Parisian  or  German  schools. 

In  Denmark  and  Scandinavia  there  has  recently  come  to 
the  front  a remarkable  school  of  high-light  painters,  based 
on  Parisian  methods,  that  threatens  to  outrival  Paris  itself. 
The  work  of  such  men  as  Kroyer,  Zorn,  Petersen,  Liljefors, 
Thanlow,  Bjorck,  Thegerstrom,  is  as  startling  in  its  realism 
as  it  is  brilliant  in  its  color.  The  pictures  in  the  Scandina- 
vian section  of  the  Paris  Exposition  of  i 889  were  a revela- 
tion of  new  strength  from  the  North,  and  this  has  been 
somewhat  increased  by  the  Scandinavian  pictures  at  the 
World’s  Fair  in  1893.  It  is  impossible  to  predict  what  will 


POSTSCRIPT. 


277 


be  the  outcome  of  this  northern  art,  nor  what  will  be  the 
result  of  the  recent  movement  here  in  America.  All  that 
can  be  said  is  that  the  tide  seems  to  be  setting  westward 
and  northward,  though  Paris  has  been  the  centre  of  art  for 
many  years,  and  will  doubtless  continue  to  be  the  centre 
for  many  years  to  come. 


INDEX. 


Abbate,  Niccold  dell’,  134. 

Abbey,  Edwin  A. , 271. 

Aelst,  Willem  Van,  219. 

Aetion,  30. 

Agatharchos,  27. 

Aime-Morot,  Nicolas,  167. 

Albani,  Francesco,  126,  131. 
Albertinelli,  Mariotto,  90,  97. 
Alemannus,  Johannes  (da  Murano), 
79.  84. 

Aldegrever,  Heinrich,  231. 
Alexander,  John,  262. 

Alexander,  J.  W. , 272. 

Aligny,  Claude  Francois,  149. 
Allegri,  Pomponio,  108,  109. 

Allori,  Cristofano,  127,  13 1. 

Allston,  Washington,  263. 
Alma-Tadema,  Laurenz,  199,  202. 
Altdorfer,  Albrecht,  231,  239. 

Alvarez,  Don  Luis,  184. 

Aman-Jean,  E.,  165. 

Andrea  da  Firenze,  52,  56. 

Angelico,  Fra  Giovanni,  54,  55,  56, 
65,  67. 

Anselmi,  Michelangelo,  108,  109. 
Antiochus  Gabinius,  35. 

Antonio  Veneziano,  52,  56. 

Apelles,  30. 

Apollodorus,  27,  28. 

Aranda,  Luis  Jiminez,  185. 

Aretino,  Spinello,  53,  56. 

Aristides,  29. 

Artz,  D.  A.  C. , 220. 

Aubert,  Ernest  Jean,  155. 


Backer,  Jacob,  210. 

Backhuisen,  Ludolf,  218,  222. 
Bagnacavallo,  Bartolommeo  Ramen- 
ghi,  105,  109. 

Baker,  George  A. , 266. 

Baldovinetti,  Alessio,  63,  71. 
Baldung,  Hans,  230,  239. 

Bargue,  Charles,  167. 

Baroccio,  Federigo,  125,  130. 
Bartolo,  Taddeo  di,  54,  56. 
Bartolommeo,  Fra  (Baccio  della  Por- 
ta), go,  92,  95,  97. 

Basaiti,  Marco,  83,  85. 

Bassano,  Francesco,  119-121. 
Bassano,  Jacopo,  119-121. 

Bastert,  N. , 221. 

Bastien-Lepage,  Jules,  166. 

Baudry,  Paul,  163. 

Beccafumi,  Domenico,  103,  108. 
Becerra,  Gaspar,  177,  185. 

Beckwith,  J.  Carroll,  270. 

Beechey,  Sir  William,  246. 

Beham,  Barthel,  231. 

Beham,  Sebald,  231. 

Bellini,  Gentile,  81,  85,  94. 

Bellini,  Giovanni,  74,  77,  81,  82,  83, 
85,  112-115,  214,  229. 

Bellini,  Jacopo,  79,  81,  85. 

Beltraffio,  Giovanni  Antonio,  102. 
Benjamin  - Constant,  Jean  Joseph, 
165. 

Benson,  Frank  W. , 270. 

Beraud,  Jean,  170. 

Berchem,  Claas  Pietersz,  217,  222. 


280 


INDEX. 


Berne-Bellecour,  Etienne  Prosper, 
167. 

Berrettini,  Pietro  (il  Cortona),  127, 

131- 

Berruguete,  Alonzo,  176,  185. 

Bertin,  Jean  Victor,  149,  157. 
Besnard,  Paul  Albert,  170. 

Bierstadt,  Albert,  265. 

Billet,  Pierre,  161. 

Bink,  Jakob,  231. 

Bissolo,  Pier  Francesco,  83,  85. 
Bjorck, O. , 276. 

Blake,  William,  247,  254. 

Blashfield,  Edwin  H. , 270. 
Blommers,  B.  J. , 220. 

Blum,  Robert,  270. 

Bocklin,  Arnold,  238,  240. 

Bol,  Ferdinand,  210,  221. 

Boldini,  Giuseppe,  130,  131. 
Bonfiglio,  Benedetto,  66,  67,  72. 
Bonheur,  Auguste,  160. 

Bonheur,  Rosa,  160. 

Bonifazio  I.  (Veronese),  119-121. 
Bonifazio  II.,  119-121. 

Bonifazio  III.  (il  Veneziano),  119-121. 
Bonington,  Richard  Parkes,  157,  252. 
Bonnat,  Leon,  164. 

Bonsignori,  Francesco,  76,  84. 
Bonvin,  Francois,  168. 

Bordone,  Paris,  119,  121. 
Borgognone,  Ambrogio,  71,  72. 
Bosboom,  J.,  220. 

Bosch,  Hieronymus,  205,  221. 

Both,  Jan,  217,  222. 

Botticelli,  Sandro,  61,  63,  71. 
Boucher,  Francois,  141,  145,  146. 
Boudin,  Eugene,  171. 

Boughton,  George  H.,  258. 
Bouguereau,  W.  Adolphe,  162,  163. 
Boulanger,  Hippolyte,  200. 
Boulanger,  Louis,  153. 

Bourdichon,  Jean,  133. 

Bourdon,  Sebastien,  138. 

Bouts,  Dierich,  190,  191,  201,  205. 
Bradford,  William,  265. 

Breton,  Jules  Adolphe,  161. 


Breughel,  193,  201. 

Bridgman,  Frederick  A.,  272. 

Bril,  Paul,  193,  201,  214,  222. 

Bristol,  John  B. , 265. 

Bronzino  (Agnolo  di  Cosimo),  il,  124, 

131- 

Brouwer,  Adriaan,  198,  202. 

Brown,  Ford  Madox,  257. 

Brown,  John  Lewis,  170 
Brush,  George  D.  F. , 270. 
Bugiardini,  Giuliano  di  Piero,  91,  97. 
Bunce,  W.  Gedney,  273. 

Burkmair,  Hans,  232,  233,  239. 
Burne-Jones,  Sir  Edward,  257. 
Butler,  Howard  Russell,  274. 

Cabanel,  Alexandre,  162,  163. 
Caillebotte,  170. 

Calderon,  Philip  Hermogenes,  258. 
Callcott,  Sir  Augustus  Wall,  251. 
Calvaert,  Denis,  192. 

Campin,  Robert,  189.  [131. 

Canaletto  (Antonio  Canale),  il,  129, 
Cano,  Alonzo,  181,  185. 

Caracci,  Agostino,  125-127,  130. 
Caracci,  Annibale,  125-127,  130,  182. 
Caracci,  Ludovico,  125-127,  130. 
Caravaggio,  Michelangelo  Amerighi 
da,  127,  128,  131,  136,  181,  182. 
Carolus  - Duran,  Charles  Auguste 
Emil,  164. 

Caroto,  Giovanni  Francisco,  76,  84, 

120,  121. 

Carpaccio,  Vittore,  77,  82,  83,  85. 
Carriere,  E.,  165. 

Carstens,  Asmus  Jacob,  236. 

Cassatt,  Mary,  170. 

Castagno,  Andrea  del,  63,  71,  176. 
Castro,  Juan  Sanchez  de,  180,  185. 
Catena,  Vincenzo  di  Biagio,  83,  85. 
Cattermole,  George,  254. 

Cavazzola,  Paolo  (Moranda),  120, 

121. 

Cazin,  Jean  Charles,  159. 

Cespedes,  Pablo  de,  180,  185. 
Champaigne,  Philip  de,  139. 


INDEX. 


281 


Champmartin,  Callande  de,  153. 
Chapman,  Carlton  T. , 274. 

Chardin,  Jean  Baptiste  Simeon,  142. 
Chase,  William  M.,  269. 

Chintreuil,  Antoine,  159. 

Church,  Frederick  E. , 264. 

Cima  da  Conegliano,  Giov.  Battis- 
ta, 82,  85. 

Cimabue,  Giovanni,  51,  54,  56. 
Clays,  Paul  Jean,  200,  202. 

Clouet,  Francois,  134. 

Clouet,  Jean,  134. 

Cocxie,  Michiel  van,  192,  201. 
Coello,  Claudio,  179,  185. 

Coffin,  William  A.,  273. 

Cogniet,  Leon,  153. 

Cole,  Vicat,  258. 

Cole,  Thomas,  264. 

Coleman,  C.  C.,  272. 

Colman,  Samuel,  273. 

Constable,  John,  157,  216,  251-253, 
259- 

Copley,  John  Singleton,  261,  264. 
Coques,  Gonzales,  198,  202. 

Cormon,  Fernand,  165. 

Cornelis  van  Haarlem,  206,  221. 
Cornelius,  Peter  von,  130,236, 237, 239. 
Corot,  Jean  Baptiste  Camille,  157, 
159,  221. 

Correggio  (Antonio  Allegri),  il,  101, 
105-109,  no,  124,  125,  177,  180, 

245.  249. 

Cossa,  Francesco,  69,  72. 

Costa,  Lorenzo,  69,  72,  104,  107. 
Cotman,  John  Sell,  251. 

Cottet,  168. 

Courbet,  G.,  162,  165,  166,  199,  219. 
Cousin,  Jean,  134,  135. 

Couture,  Thomas,  155,  26 6. 

Cozens,  John  Robert,  254. 

Cox,  David,  254. 

Cox,  Kenyon,  270. 

Cranach  (the  Elder),  Lucas,  199,  234, 

235.  239- 

Cranach  (the  Younger),  Lucas,  235, 
239- 


Crane,  R.  Bruce,  273. 

Crawhall,  Joseph,  259. 

Crayer,  Kasper  de,  196,  201. 

Credi,  Lorenzo  di,  64,  65,  71. 
Cristus,  Peter,  189,  201. 

Crivelli,  Carlo,  80,  81,  84. 

Crome,  John  (Old  Crome),  251. 
Cuyp,  Aelbert,  217,  218,  222. 
Dagnan-Bouveret,  Pascal  A.  J.f 
168. 

Damoye,  Pierre  Emmanuel,  159. 
Damophilos,  35. 

Dannat,  William  T. , 272. 

Dantan,  Joseph  Edouard,  168. 
Daubigny,  Charles  Francois,  158. 
David,  Gheeraert,  191,  192,  201. 
David,  Jacques  Louis,  130,  147-152. 

153,  156,  162,  183,  198,  219. 

Dearth,  Henry  J.,  273. 

Decamps,  A.  G.,  153. 

Degas,  170. 

De  Haas,  M.  F.  H. , 273. 

Delacroix,  Ferdinand  Victor  E.,  151, 
152,  160,  162,  253.  259. 

Delaroche,  Hippolyte  (Paul),  153. 

154.  199- 

Delaunay,  Jules  Elie,  165. 

De  Neuville,  Alphonse  Maria,  167. 

De  Nittis.  See  “ Nittis.” 

Denner,  Balthasar,  236,  239. 
Detaille,  Jean  Baptiste  Edouard, 
167. 

Deveria,  Eugene,  153. 

Dewey,  Charles  Melville,  273. 
Dewing,  Thomas  W. , 270. 

Dewint,  Peter,  254. 

Diana,  Benedetto,  84,  85. 

Diaz  de  la  Pena,  Narciso  Virgilio, 
158. 

Diepenbeeck,  Abraham  van,  196, 
201. 

Dionysius,  35. 

Dolci,  Carlo,  126,  131,  182. 
Domenichino  (Domenico  Zampieri), 
126,  130. 

Domingo,  J.,  185. 


282 


INDEX. 


Dossi,  Dosso  (Giovanni  di  Lutero), 
104,  107,  108. 

Dou,  Gerard,  210,  221. 

Doughty,  Thomas,  264. 

Du  Breuil,  Toussaint,  134. 

Duccio  di  Buoninsegna,  53,  56,  65. 
Duez,  Ernest  Ange,  168. 

Du  Jardin,  Karel,  217,  222. 

Dupre,  Julien,  166. 

Dupre,  Jules,  158. 

Durand,  Asher  Brown,  264. 

Dlirer,  Albrecht,  205,  229-235,  239. 


Eastlake,  Sir  Charles,  247. 
Eeckhout,  Gerbrand  van  den,  210, 
221. 

Elliott,  Charles  Loring,  265. 
Elzheimer,  Adam,  235,  239. 
Engelbrechsten,  Cornelis,  205. 

Etty,  William,  247. 

Euphranor,  29. 

Eupompos,  28. 

Everdingen,  Allart  van,  215,  222. 
Eyck,  Hubert  van,  188,  201. 

Eyck,  Jan  van,  84,  174,  188-190,  193, 
201,  204,  205. 

Fabius  Pictor,  35. 

Fabriano,  Gentile  da,  54,  55,  56,  66, 
74.  75.  79-  81. 

Fabritius,  Karel,  210,  213,  221. 

Faed,  Thomas,  258. 

Fantin-Latour,  Henri,  168. 

Favretto,  Giacomo,  130,  131. 

Ferrara,  Gaudenzio,  102,  108. 
Fielding,  Anthony  V.  D.  Copley,  254. 
Filippino.  See  Lippi. 

Fiore,  Jacobello  del,  79,  84. 

Fiorenzo  di  Lorenzo,  66,  72. 
Flandrin,  Jean  Hippolyte,  154. 
Flinck,  Govaert,  210,  221. 

Floris,  Franz,  192,  201. 

Foppa,  Vincenzo,  71,  72,  101. 

Forain,  J.  L.,  170. 

Forbes,  Stanhope,  258. 


Fortuny,  Mariano,  130,  183-185. 
Fouquet,  Jean,  133. 

Fragonard,  Jean  Honore,  141. 
Fran^ais,  Francois  Louis,  159. 
Francesca,  Piero  della,  66,  72,  75. 
Francia,  Francesco  (Raibolini),  69, 
72,  105,  107. 

Franciabigio  (Francesco  di  Cristo- 
fano  Bigi),  92,  97. 

Francken,  192. 

Fredi,  Bartolo  di,  54,  56. 

Fr6minet,  Martin,  135. 

Frere,  T.,  154. 

Friant,  Emile,  168. 

Fromentin,  E.,  154. 

Fuller,  George,  266. 

Fyt,  Jan,  196,  201. 

Gaddi,  Agnolo,  52,  56. 

Gaddi,  Taddeo,  52,  56. 
Gainsborough,  T.,  245-247,  259. 
Gallait,  Louis,  199. 

Garofolo  (Benvenuto  Tisi),  il,  104, 
107,  109. 

Gay,  Edward,  273. 

Gay,  Walter,  272. 

Geldorp,  Gortzius,  192. 

Gerard,  Baron  Francois  Pascal,  148. 
Gericault,  Jean  Louis,  A.  T. , 15 1. 
Gerome,  Jean  Leon,  155,  162,  163, 
167,  184. 

Gervex,  Henri,  168. 

Ghirlandajo,  Domenico,  63,  64,  71, 
92,  176. 

Ghirlandajo,  Ridolfo,  91,  97. 
Giampietrino  (Giovanni  Pedrini), 
102,  108. 

Gifford,  Sandford,  265. 

Gifford,  R.  Swain,  273. 

Giorgione  (Giorgio  Barbarelli),  il, 
83,  94,  112-121,  128. 

Giordano,  Luca,  128,  131,  183. 
Giotto  di  Bondone,  49,  50,  52,54,  55, 
56.  73- 

Giottino  (Tommaso  di  Stefano),  52, 
56. 


INDEX. 


283 


Giovanni  da  Milano,  52,  56. 
Giovanni  da  Udine,  97,  98. 

Girodet  de  Roussy,  Anne  Louis,  148. 
Girtin,  Thomas,  254. 

Giulio  (Pippi),  Romano,  96,  98,  120, 
136. 

Gleyre,  Marc  Charles  Gabriel,  154. 
Goes,  Hugo  van  der,  190,  201. 
Gorgasos,  35. 

Goya  y Lucientes,  Francisco,  183, 
185. 

Goyen,  Jan  van,  214,  218,  222. 
Gozzoli,  Benozzo,  63,  65,  71. 
Granacci,  Francesco,  91,  97. 

Grandi,  Ercole  di  Giulio,  69,  72. 
Greuze,  Jean  Baptiste,  142. 

Gros,  Baron  Antoine  Jean,  149,  151, 
152. 

Griinewald,  Matthias,  234. 

Guardi,  Francesco,  129,  131. 
Guercino  (Giov.  Fran.  Barbiera),  il, 
126,  131. 

Guerin,  Pierre  Narcisse,  148. 

Guido  Reni,  126,  130,  136. 

Guido  da  Sienna,  53,  56. 

Guthrie,  James,  259. 

Hals,  Franz  (the  Younger),  207, 
211,  212,  221. 

Hamilton,  James,  259. 

Hamilton,  McLure,  270. 

Hamon,  Jean  Louis,  155. 

Harding,  Chester,  265. 

Harpignies,  Henri,  159. 

Hassam,  Childe,  270. 

Harrison,  T.  Alexander,  272. 

Healy,  George  P.  A.,  266.  [164. 

Hubert,  Antoine  Auguste  Ernest, 
Heem,  Jan  van,  218. 

Heemskerck,  Marten  van,  206,  221. 
Heist,  Bartholomeus  van  der,  210, 
Henner,  Jean  Jacques,  164.  [221. 

Henry,  George,  259. 

Herkomer,  Hubert,  258. 

Herrera,  Francisco  de,  177,  180,  185. 
Heyden,  Jan  van  der,  218,  222. 


j Hicks,  Thomas,  266. 

I Hill,  Thomas,  265. 

Hitchcock,  George,  272.  [251. 

Hobbema,  Meindert,  215,  216,  222, 
Hogarth,  William,  243,  244. 

Holbein  (the  Elder),  Hans,  233,  239. 
Holbein  (the  Younger),  Hans,  134, 
229-234,  239,  243. 

Holl,  Frank,  258. 

Homer,  Winslow,  268. 

Hondecoeter,  Melchior  d’,  219,  222. 
Hooghe,  Pieter  de,  199,  213,  221. 
Hook,  James  Clarke,  259. 

Hoppner,  John,  246. 

Hornell,  E.  A.,  259. 

Hubbard,  Richard  W.,  265. 

Huet,  Paul,  159. 

Hunt,  Holman,  255,  256. 

Hunt,  William  Henry,  254. 

Hunt,  William  Morris,  266. 
Huntington,  Daniel,  266. 

Huysum,  Jan  van,  219-222. 

Imola,  Innocenza  da  (Francucci), 
97,  98,  105. 

Ingres,  Jean  Auguste  Dominique, 
148,  152-154,  161,  162. 

Inman,  Henry,  265. 

Inness,  George,  273. 

Israels,  Jozef,  219,  220. 

Jacque,  Charles,  159.  [196,  201. 

Janssens  van  Nuyssen,  Abraham, 
Jarvis,  John  Wesley,  263. 

Joannes,  Juan  de,  182, 185. 

Johnson,  David,  265. 

Johnson,  Eastman,  268. 

Jongkind,  221. 

Jordaens,  Jacob,  196. 

Justus  van  Ghent,  190,  201. 

Kalf,  Willem,  219. 

Kauffman,  Angelica,  236,  239. 
Kaulbach,  Wilhelm  von,  237,  239. 
Kendall,  Sergeant,  272. 

Kensett,  John  F.,  264. 

Kever,  J.  S.  H.,  221. 

I Keyser,  Thomas  de,  207,  221. 


284 


INDEX. 


Klinger,  Max,  238. 

Kneller,  Sir  Godfrey,  243. 

Koninck,  Philip  de,  210,  221. 

Kroyer,  Peter  S.,  276. 

Kuehl,  G.,  238. 

Kulmbach,  Hans  von,  230,  239. 

Kunz,  227,  239. 

La  Farge,  John,  268. 

Lancret,  Nicolas,  141. 

Landseer,  Sir  Edwin  Henry,  249. 
Largilliere,  Nicolas,  139. 

Lastman,  Pieter,  207. 

Laurens,  Jean  Paul,  165. 

Lavery,  John,  259. 

Lawrence,  Sir  Thomas,  247. 

Lawson,  Cecil  Gordon,  258. 

Lawson,  John,  259. 

Lebrun,  Charles,  138, 139.  [g6e-,  149. 
Lebrun,  Marie  Elizabeth  Louise  Vi- 
Lefebvre,  Jules  Joseph,  164. 

Legros,  Alphonse,  161. 

Leibl,  Wilhelm,  238,  240. 

Leighton,  Sir  Frederick,  258. 

Leloir,  Alexandre  Louis,  167. 

Lely,  Sir  Peter,  243 
Lenbach,  Franz,  238,  239. 

Leonardo  da  Vinci,  64,  66,  71,  90, 
92,  95,  99-103,  107,  108,  134. 
Lerolle,  Henri,  161. 

Leslie,  Robert  Charles,  264/ 
Lessing,  Karl  Friedrich,  266. 

Le  Sueur,  Eustache,  138. 

Lethiere,  Guillaume  Guillon,  148. 
Leutze,  Emanuel,  266. 

Lewis,  John  Frederick,  254. 

Leyden,  Lucas  van,  205,  221.  [202. 

Leys,  Baron  Jean  Auguste  Henri,  199, 
L’hermitte,  Leon  Augustin,  166. 
Liberale  da  Verona,  76,  84,  120. 
Libri,  Girolamo  dai,  120,  121. 
Liebermann,  Max,  238. 

Liljefors,  Bruno,  276. 

Lippi,  Fra  Filippo,  63,  71,  74. 

Lippi,  Filippino,  63,  71. 

Lockwood,  Wilton,  270. 

Lombard,  Lambert,  192. 


Lorenzetti,  Ambrogio,  49,  50,  54,  55, 
56. 

Lorenzetti,  Pietro,  54,  56,  65. 
Lorrain,  Claude  (Gellee),  136,  130, 
217,  250,  251,  253 
Lotto,  Lorenzo,  118,  121. 

Low,  Will  H.,  270. 

Luini,  Bernardino,  101,  108. 
Mabuse,  Jan  (Gossart)  van,  192 
201,  206,  243. 

McBride,  A.,  259. 

McEntee,  Jervis,  265. 

McEwen,  Walter,  272. 

Madrazo,  Raimundo  de,  184,  185. 
Maes,  Nicolaas,  210,  221. 

Makart,  Hans,  238,  240. 

Manet,  Edouard,  168,  169,  170. 
Mansueti,  Giovanni,  84,  85. 
Mantegna,  Andrea,  61,  74,  76,  77, 
81,  84,  107,  229,  234. 

Maratta,  Carlo,  127,  131. 

Marconi,  Rocco,  118,  119,  121. 
Marilhat,  P.,  154. 

Maris,  James,  220. 

Maris,  Matthew,  220. 

Maris,  Willem,  221. 

Martin,  Henri,  168. 

Martin,  Homer,  273. 

Martino,  Simone  di,  54,  56.  [93,  95. 

Masaccio,  Tommaso,  54,  61,  71,  92, 
Masolino,  Tommaso  Fini,  61,  71. 
Massys,  Quentin,  191,  192,  201,  234. 
Master  of  the  Lyversberg  Passion, 
227. 

Mauve,  Anton,  221.  [179,  185. 

Mazo,  Juan  Bautista  Martinez  del, 
Mazzolino,  Ludovico,  105,  109. 
Maynard,  George  W.,  274. 

Meer  of  Delft,  Jan  van  der,  213,  221. 
Meire,  Gerard  van  der,  190,  201.  [184. 
Meissonier,  Jean  Louis  Ernest,  167, 
Meister,  Stephen  (Lochner) , 225. 
Meister,  Wilhelm,  222. 

Melchers,  Gari,  272. 

Melozzo  da  Forli,  67,  72. 

Melville,  Arthur,  259. 

Memling,  Hans,  190,  201. 


INDEX. 


Memmi,  Lippo,  54,  56. 

Mengs,  Raphael,  236,  239. 

Menzel,  Adolf,  238,  239. 

Mesdag,  Hendrik  Willem,  221. 
Messina,  Antonello  da,  83,  84,  85, 
102,  113. 

Metcalf,  Willard  L. , 270. 
Metrodorus,  35. 

Metsu,  Gabriel,  167,  211,  221. 
Mettling,  V.  Louis,  168. 

Michael  Angelo  (Buonarroti),  62, 
90,  92,.  97,  99,  112,  116,  122,  123- 
126,  144,  176,  181,  192,  206. 
Michallon,  Achille  Etna,  149. 

Michel,  Georges,  159. 

Michetti,  Francesco  Paolo,  130,  131. 
Mierevelt,  Michiel  Jansz,  206,  221. 
Mieris,  Franz  van,  211,  221. 
Mignard,  Pierre,  139. 

Millais,  Sir  John,  255,  256,  257. 
Millet,  Francis  D.,  270. 

Millet,  Jean  Francois,  160-162,  165, 
166,  219,  266. 

Miranda,  Juan  Carreno  de,  179, 
185. 

Molyn  (the  Elder),  Pieter  de,  215, 
222. 

Monet,  Claude,  170,  171. 

Montagna,  Bartolommeo,  77,  84. 
Montenard,  Frederic,  171. 

Moore,  Albert,  258. 

Moore,  Henry,  259. 

Morales,  Luis  de,  177,  185. 

Moran,  Thomas,  265. 

Morelli,  Domenico,  130,  131. 
Moretto  (Alessandro  Buonvicino)  il, 
120,  121. 

Morland,  George,  248. 

Moro,  Antonio,  177,  192,  201,  243. 
Moroni,  Giovanni  Battista,  120,  121. 
Morton,  Thomas,  259. 

Mostert,  Jan,  191,  201,  205. 

Mount,  William  S. , 266. 

Mowbray,  H.  Siddons,  270. 
Mulready,  William,  249. 

Munkacsy,  Mihaly,  238,  240. 


285 

Murillo,  Bartolome  Esteban,  173, 
180-182,  185. 

Murphy,  J.  Francis,  273. 

Navarette,  Juan  Fernandez,  177, 
185. 

Navez,  Francois,  199,  200,  202. 

Neer,  Aart  van  der,  215,  222. 

Nelli,  Ottaviano,  65,  71. 

Netscher,  Kasper,  211,  221. 
Neuchatel,  Nicolaus,  192. 

Neuhuys,  Albert,  220. 

Newton,  Gilbert  Stuart,  264. 

Niccold  (Alunno)  da  Foligno,  65, 
66,  72. 

Nicol,  Erskine,  258. 

Nikias,  29. 

Nikomachus,  29. 

Nittis,  Giuseppe  de,  130,  131. 

Nono,  Luigi,  130. 

Noort,  Adam  van,  195,  196,  201. 

Oggiono,  Marco  da,  102,  108. 

Opie,  John,  246. 

Orcagna  (Andrea  di  Cione),  52,  56. 
Orchardson,  William  Quiller,  258. 
Orley,  Barent  van,  192. 

Ostade,  Adriaan  van,  211,  212,  221. 
Ouwater,  Aalbert  van,  204. 
Overbeck,  Johann  Friedrich,  130, 
236,  239. 

Pacchia,  Girolamo  della,  103,  108. 
Pacchiarotta,  Giacomo,  103,  108. 
Pacheco,  Francisco,  178,  180,  185. 
Pacuvius,  35. 

Padovanino  (Ales.  Varotari),  il,  128, 
131- 

Page,  William,  266. 

Palma  (il  Vecchio),  Jacopo,  118,  119, 
121. 

Palma  (il  Giovine),  Jacopo,  128, 131. 
Palmaroli,  Vincente,  184. 
Parmigianino  (Francesco  Mazzola), 
il,  108,  109,  135. 

Pamphilos,  28. 


286 


INDEX. 


Panetti,  Domenico,  104. 

Paolino  (Fra)  da  Pistoja,  90,  97. 
Parrhasios,  28. 

Parsons,  Alfred,  259. 

Pater,  Jean  Baptiste  Joseph,  141. 
Paterson,  James,  259. 

Patinir,  Joachim,  191. 

Pausias,  28. 

Peale,  Charles  Wilson,  261. 

Peale,  Rembrandt,  263. 

Pearce,  Charles  Sprague,  272. 
Pelouse,  Leon  Germaine,  159. 

Pencz,  Georg,  231. 

Penni,  Giovanni  Francesco,  96,  98. 
Pereal,  Jean,  133. 

Perino  del  Vaga,  94,  97,  98,  180. 
Perugino,  Pietro  (Vanucci),  64,  67, 
69,  70,  72,  95. 

Peruzzi,  Baldassare,  103,  108. 
Petersen,  Eilif,  276. 

Piero  di  Cosimo,  65,  71. 

Piloty,  Carl  Theodor  von,  237,  239. 
Pinturricchio,  Bernardino,  68,  70,  72. 
Piombo,  Sebastiano  del,  94,  98,  182. 
Pisano,  Vittore  (Pisanello),  73,  75, 
79.  84. 

Pissarro,  Camille,  170. 

Pizzolo,  Niccolo,  75,  84. 

Platt,  Charles  A.,  273. 

Plydenwurff,  Wilhelm,  228. 
Poggenbeek,  George,  221. 

Pointelin,  159. 

Pollajuolo,  Antonio  del,  63,  71. 
Polygnotus,  26.  [124. 

Pontormo,  Jacopo  (Carrucci),  92,  97, 
Poorter,  Willem  de,  210,  221. 
Pordenone,  Giovanni  Ant.,  119,  121. 
Potter,  Paul,  216,  222. 

Pourbus,  Peeter,  192,  201. 

Poussin,  Gaspard  (Dughet),  136. 
Poussin,  Nicolas,  126,  136,  137,  150, 
251. 

Pradilla,  Francisco,  184. 

Previtali,  Andrea,  83,  85. 
Primaticcio,  Francesco,  97,  98,  134. 
Protogenes,  30. 


Prout,  Samuel,  254. 

Prudhon,  Pierre  Paul,  147. 

Puvis  de  Chavannes,  Pierre,  164. 

Quartley,  Arthur,  274. 

Raeburn,  Sir  Henry,  246. 

Raffaelli,  Jean  Francois,  170. 
Raphael  Sanzio,  62,  67,  90,  94,  98, 
99,  103,  124,  125,  149,  182,  192, 206, 
255. 

Ravesteyn,  Jan  van,  207,  221. 
Regnault,  Henri,  165. 

Regnault,  Jean  Baptiste,  147,  148. 
Rehn,  F.  K.  M. , 274. 

Reid,  Robert,  270. 

Reid-Murray,  J.,  259. 

Reinhart,  Charles  S.,  270. 

Rembrandt  van  Ryn,  148,  196,  204, 
207-213,  221,  249. 

Rene  of  Anjou,  133. 

Renoir,  170. 

Reynolds,  Sir  Joshua,  212,  244-247. 
Ribalta,  Francisco  de,  182,  185. 
Ribera,  Roman,  185. 

Ribera  (Lo  Spagnoletto),  Jose  di, 
128,  168,  178,  182,  183,  185. 

Ribot,  Augustin  Theodule,  168. 
Richards,  William  T.,  265. 

Rico,  Martin,  185. 

Rigaud,  Hyacinthe,  139. 

Rincon,  Antonio,  176,  185. 
Robert-Fleury,  Joseph  Nicolas,  153. 
Robie,  Jean,  200. 

Robinson,  Theodore,  273. 

Roche,  Alex.,  259. 

Rochegrosse,  Georges,  165. 

Roelas,  Juan  de  las,  180,  181,  185. 
Roll,  Alfred  Philippe,  170. 
Romanino,  Girolamo  Bresciano,  120, 
121. 

Rombouts,  Theodoor,  196,  201. 
Romney,  George,  246. 

Rondinelli,  Niccolo,  84,  85. 

Rosa,  Salvator,  128,  131. 

Rosselli,  Cosimo,  63,  71,  90. 


INDEX. 


287 


Rossetti,  Gabriel  Charles  Dante,  255, 
256,  257. 

Rosso,  il,  134. 

Rottenhammer,  Johann,  235,  239. 
Rousseau,  Theodore,  158,  160,  162. 
Roybet,  Ferdinand,  168. 

Rubens,  Peter  Paul,  135,  179,  193- 
201,  210,  243. 

Ruisdael,  Jacob  van,  215,  216,  222. 
Ruisdael,  Solomon  van,  215,  222. 
Ryder,  Albert,  268. 

Sabbatini  (Andrea  da  Salerno),  97, 
98. 

St.  Jan,  Geertjen  van,  205. 

Salaino  (Andrea  Sala),  il,  101,  108. 
Salviati,  Francesco  Rossi,  124,  130. 
Sanchez-Coello,  Alonzo,  177,  185. 
Santi,  Giovanni,  67,  72. 

Sanzio.  See  “ Raphael.” 

Sargent,  John  S.,  269,  270. 

Sarto,  Andrea  (Angeli)  del,  91,  97, 
101,  105,  134. 

Sassoferrato  (Giov.  Battista  Salvi), 
il,  126,  131. 

Savoldo,  Giovanni  Girolamo,  120, 
121. 

Schadow,  Friedrich  Wilhelm  von, 
236,  237,  239. 

Schaffner,  Martin,  231,  239. 
Schalcken,  Godfried,  211,  221. 
Schaufelin,  Hans  Leonhardt,  230, 
239. 

Scheffer,  Ary,  153. 

Schongauer,  Martin,  231,  232,  233, 
239- 

Schnorr  von  Karolsfeld,  J.,  237,  239. 
Schuchlin,  Hans,  231. 

Scorel,  Jan  van,  192,  206,  221. 
Segantini,  Giovanni,  130. 
Semitecolo,  Niccolo,  79,  84. 
Serapion,  35. 

Sesto,  Cesare  da,  102,  108. 

Shannon,  J.  J.,  272. 

Shirlaw,  Walter,  270. 

Shurtleff,  Roswell  M.,  273. 


Sigalon,  Xavier,  153. 

Signorelli,  Luca,  66,  67,  72,  93. 
Simmons,  Edward  E.,  270. 
Simonetti,  130. 

Sisley,  Alfred,  171. 

Smedley,  William  T. , 270. 

Smibert,  John,  261. 

Snell,  Henry  B. , 274. 

Snyders,  Franz,  196,  201. 

Sodoma  (Giov.  Ant.  Bazzi),  il,  103 
108. 

Solario,  Andrea  (da  Milano),  102, 
108. 

Sopolis,  35. 

Sorolla,  Joaquin,  185. 

Spagna,  Lo  (Giovanni  di  Pietro),  69, 
72. 

Spence,  Harry,  259. 

Spranger,  Bartholomeus,  192. 
Squarcione,  Francesco,  73,  74,  75,  81, 
Stamina,  Gherardo,  54,  56. 

Steele,  Edward,  246. 

Steen,  Jan,  211,  212,  249. 

Steenwyck,  Hendrik  van,  206,  221. 
Stevens,  Alfred,  200,  202. 

Stewart,  Julius  L. , 272. 

Strigel,  Bernard,  232,  239. 

Stothard,  Thomas,  254. 

Stott  of  Oldham,  258. 

Stuart,  Gilbert,  262,  263. 

Stuck,  Franz,  238. 

Sully,  Thomas,  263,  264. 
Swanenburch,  Jakob  Isaaks  van,  207. 
Tarbell,  Edmund  C.,  270. 

Teniers  (the  Younger),  David,  197, 
202. 

Terburg,  Gerard,  167,  212,  221. 
Thaulow,  Fritz,  276. 

Thayer,  Abbott  H. , 270. 
Thegerstrom,  R. , 276. 

Theodorich  of  Prague,  227,  239. 
Theotocopuli,  Domenico,  177,  185. 
Thoma,  Hans,  238. 

Tiepolo,  Giovanni  Battista,  128,  131. 
Tiepolo,  Giovanni  Domenico,  129, 

131- 


288 


INDEX. 


Timanthes,  28. 

Tintoretto  (Jacopo  Robusti),  il,  115- 
117,  121,  123,  128. 

Titian  (Tiziano  Vecelli),  101,  113- 
121,  124,  125,  128,  177,  179,  194, 
196,  212,  245. 

Tito,  Ettore,  130. 

Torbido,  Francisco  (il  Moro),  120, 
121. 

Toulmouche,  Auguste,  167. 

Tristan,  Luis,  177,  178,  185. 

Troyon,  Constant,  159,  160. 

Trumbull,  John,  262,  265. 

Tryon,  Dwight  W. , 273. 

Tura,  Cosimo,  69,  72,  75. 

Turner,  C.  Y.,  270. 

Turner,  Joseph  Mallord  William, 
25L  253,  254. 

Twachtman,  John  H.,  273. 

Uccello,  Paolo,  63,  71,  74. 

Uhde,  Fritz  von,  238,  240. 

Ulrich,  Charles  F.,  272. 

Vaenius,  Otho,  195,  201. 

Van  Beers,  Jan,  200,  202. 

Vanderlyn,  John,  263. 

Van  Dyck,  Sir  Anthony,  181,  195, 
198,  201,  243,  244. 

Van  Dyck,  Philip,  219,  222. 

Van  Loo,  Jean  Baptiste,  141,  145, 
146. 

Van  Marcke,  Emil,  159. 

Vargas,  Luis  de,  180,  185. 

Vasari,  Giorgio,  124,  130 

Vedder,  Elihu,  268. 

Veit,  Philipp,  236,  239. 

Velasquez,  Diego  Rodriguez  de 
Silva  y,  173,  174,  177-185,  194, 
196,  207,  212,  249,  271. 

Velde,  Adrien  van  de,  216,  222. 

Velde  (the  Elder),  Willem  van  de, 
218,  222. 

Velde  (the  Younger),  Willem  van 
de,  218,  222. 

Venusti,  Marcello,  94,  98. 


Verboeckhoven,  Eugene  Joseph, 
200,  202. 

1 Verhagen,  Pierre  Joseph,  198,  202. 
Vernet,  Claude  Joseph,  142,  250. 
Vernet,  Emile  Jean  Horace,  149. 
Veronese,  Paolo  (Caliari),  116-121, 
129,  136,  194. 

Verrocchio,  Andrea  del,  64,  71,  99. 
Vibert,  Jehan  Georges,  167. 
Victoors,  Jan,  210,  221. 

Vien,  Joseph  Marie,  146. 

| Villegas,  Jose,  184,  185. 

Vincent,  Francois  Andre,  147. 

Vinci.  See  “ Leonardo.” 

Vinton,  F.  P.,  270. 

Viti,  Timoteo  di,  97,  98. 

Vivarini,  Antonio  (da  Murano),  79, 
84. 

Vivarini,  Bartolommeo  (da  Murano)} 
79,  84. 

Vivarini,  Luigi  or  Alvise,  80,  85. 

I Vlieger,  Simon  de,  218,  222. 

Vollon,  Antoine,  168. 

Volterra,  Daniele  (Ricciarelli)  da,  94, 
97- 

Vos,  Cornelis  de,  196,  201. 

Vos,  Marten  de,  192. 

Vouet,  Simon,  136,  139. 

Walker,  Frederick,  258. 

Walker,  Horatio,  273. 

Walton,  E.  A.,  259. 

Wappers,  Baron  Gustavus,  199,  202. 
Watelet,  Louis  Etienne,  149. 

Watson,  John,  261. 

Watteau,  Antoine,  140,  141. 

Watts,  George  Frederick,  258. 
Wauters,  Emile,  200. 

Weeks,  Edwin  L.,  272. 

Weenix,  Jan,  219,  222. 

Weir,  J.  Alden,  270,  273. 

WerfF,  Adriaan  van  der,  219,  222. 
West,  Benjamin,  261,  262,  264. 
Weyden,  Roger  van  der,  189,  190, 
201,  231. 

Whistler,  James  A.  McNeill,  271. 


INDEX. 


289 


Whittredge,  Worthington,  265. 
Wiertz,  Antoine  Joseph,  199,  202. 
Wiles,  Irving  R.,  270. 

Wilkie,  Sir  David,  249. 

Willems,  Florent,  200,  202. 
Wilson,  Richard,  250,  251. 
Wolgemut,  Michael,  228,  239. 
Wouverman,  Philips,  216,  222. 
Wright,  Joseph,  250. 

Wurmser,  Nicolaus,  227,  239. 
Wyant,  Alexander  H.,  265,  273. 
Wyllie,  W.  L.,  259. 

Wynants,  Jan,  215,  222. 


Yon,  Edmund  Charles,  159. 

Zamacois,  Eduardo,  184,  185. 
Zegers,  Daniel,  196,  201. 

Ziem,  154. 

Zeitblom,  Bartholomaus,  231,  239. 
Zeuxis,  27. 

Zoppo,  Marco,  75,  84. 

Zorn,  Anders,  276. 

Zucchero,  Federigo,  125,  130. 
Zuloaga,  Ignacio,  185. 

Zurbaran,  Francisco  de,  180,  181, 

185. 


A History  of  Architecture. 

BY 

A.  D.  F.  HAMLIN,  A.M. 

Adjunct  Professor  of  Architecture  in  the  School  of  Mines,  Columbia  College. 

With  Frontispiece  and  229  Illustrations  and  Diagrams, 
Bibliographies,  Glossary,  Index  of  Architects,  and  a General 
Index.  Crown  8vo,  pp.  xxviii-442,  $2.00. 


“ The  text  of  this  book  is  very  valuable  because  of  the  singularly  intelligent 
view  taken  of  each  separate  epoch.  . . . The  book  is  extremely  well  fur- 
nished with  bibliographies,  lists  of  monuments  [which]  are  excellent.  . . . 

If  any  reasonable  part  of  the  contents  of  this  book  can  be  got  into  the  heads 
of  those  who  study  it,  they  will  have  excellent  ideas  about  architecture  and  the 
beginnings  of  a sound  knowledge  of  it.” — The  Nation,  New  York. 

“ A manual  that  will  be  invaluable  to  the  student,  while  it  will  give  to  the 
general  reader  a sufficiently  full  outline  for  his  purposes  of  the  development  of 
the  various  schools  of  architecture.  What  makes  it  of  special  value  is  the 
large  number  of  ground  plans  of  typical  buildings  and  the  sketches  of  bits  of 
detail  of  columns,  arches,  windows  and  doorways.  Each  chapter  is  prefaced 
by  a list  of  books  recommended,  and  each  ends  with  a list  of  monuments. 
The  illustrations  are  numerous  and  well  executed.” 

— San  Francisco  Chronicle. 

“ Probably  presents  more  comprehensively  and  at  the  same  time  concisely, 
the  various  periods  and  styles  of  architecture,  with  a characterization  of  the 
most  important  works  of  each  period  and  style,  than  any  other  published 
work.  . . . The  volume  fills  a gap  in  architectural  literature  which  has 

long  existed.” — Advertiser,  Boston. 

“A  neatly  published  work,  adapted  to  the  use  either  of  student  or  general 
reader.  As  a text-book  it  is  a concise  and  orderly  setting  forth  of  the  main 
principles  of  architecture  followed  by  the  different  schools.  The  life  history 
of  each  period  is  brief  yet  thorough.  . . . The  treatment  is  broad  and  not 

over-critical.  The  chief  facts  are  so  grouped  that  the  student  can  easily  grasp 
them.  The  plan-drawings  are  clear-cut  and  serve  their  purpose  admirably. 
The  half-tone  illustrations  are  modern  in  selection  and  treatment.  The  style 
is  clear,  easy  and  pleasing.  The  entire  production  shows  a studious  and  orderly 
mind.  A new  and  pleasing  characteristic  is  the  absence  of  all  discussion  on 
disputed  points.  In  its  unity,  clearness  and  simplicity  lie  its  charm  and 
interest.” — Notre  Dame  Scholastic,  Notre  Dame,  Ind. 

“This  is  a very  thorough  and  compendious  history  of  the  art  of  archi- 
tecture from  the  earliest  times  down  to  the  present.  . . . The  work  is 

elaborately  illustrated  with  a great  host  of  examples,  pictures,  diagrams,  etc. 
It  is  intended  to  be  used  as  a school  text-book,  and  is  very  conveniently 
arranged  for  this  purpose,  with  suitable  headings  in  bold-faced  type,  and  a 
copious  index.  Teachers  and  students  will  find  it  a capital  thing  for  the 
purpose.” — Picayune,  New  Orleans. 


LONGMANS,  GREEN  & CO.,  Publishers, 

91  & 93  Fifth  Avenue,  NEW  YORK. 


A History  of  Sculpture. 

BY 

ALLAN  MARQUAND,  Ph.D.,  L.H.D. 

AND 

ARTHUR  L.  FROTHINGHAM,  Jr.,  Ph.D. 

Professors  of  Archaeology  and  the  History  of  Art  in  Princeton  University. 

With  Frontispiece  and  113  Illustrations  in  half-tone  in  the 
text,  Bibliographies,  Addresses  for  Photographs  and  Casts,  etc. 
Crown  8vo,  313  pages,  $1.50. 


Henry  W.  Kent,  Curator  of  the  Seater  Museum , Watkins , N.  Y. 

“ Like  the  other  works  in  this  series  of  yours,  it  is  simply  invaluable, 
filling  a long-felt  want.  The  bibliographies  and  lists  will  be  keenly 
appreciated  by  all  who  work  with  a class  of  students.” 

Charles  H.  Moore,  Harvard  University. 

“The  illustrations  are  especially  good,  avoiding  the  excessively 
black  background  which  produce  harsh  contrasts  and  injure  the  outlines 
of  so  many  half-tone  prints.” 

J.  M.  Hoppin,  Yale  University. 

“ These  names  are  sufficient  guarantee  for  the  excellence  of  the 
book  and  its  fitness  for  the  object  it  was  designed  for.  I was  especially 
interested  in  the  chapter  on  Renaissance  Sculpture  in  Italy." 

Critic,  New  York. 

“ This  history  is  a model  of  condensation.  . . . Each  period  is 
treated  in  full,  with  descriptions  of  its  general  characteristics  and  its 
individual  developments  under  various  conditions,  physical,  political, 
religious  and  the  like.  ...  A general  history  of  sculpture  has  never 
before  been  written  in  English — never  in  any  language  in  convenient  text- 
book form.  This  publication,  then,  should  meet  with  an  enthusiastic  recep- 
tion among  students  and  amateurs  of  art,  not  so  much,  however,  because  it 
is  the  only  book  of  its  kind,  as  for  its  intrinsic  merit  and  attractive  form.” 

Outlook,  New  York. 

“A  concise  survey  of  the  history  of  sculpture  is  something  needed 
everywhere.  ...  A good  feature  of  this  book  — and  one  which 
should  be  imitated — is  the  list  indicating  where  casts  and  photographs 
may  best  be  obtained.  Of  course  such  a volume  is  amply  indexed.” 

Notre  Dame  Scholastic,  Notre  Dame , Ind. 

“The  work  is  orderly,  the  style  lucid  and  easy.  The  illustrations, 
numbering  over  a hundred,  are  sharply  cut  and  well  selected.  Besides  a 
general  bibliography,  there  is  placed  at  the  end  of  each  period  of  style  a 
special  list  to  which  the  student  may  refer,  should  he  wish  to  pursue 
more  fully  any  particular  school.” 


LONGMANS,  GREEN  & CO.,  Publishers, 

91  & 93  Fifth  Avenue,  NEW  YORK. 


Longmans,  Green,  & Co.’s  Publications 


AN  ENCYCLOPEDIA  OF  ARCHITECTURE. 

By  Joseph  Gwilt,  F.S.A.  Illustrated  with  about  1,700  Engrav- 
ings on  Wood.  Revised  with  Alterations  and  Considerable 
Additions,  by  Wyatt  Papworth.  8vo,  1,459  pages,  $17.50. 
This  work,  first  published  in  1842,  has  now  passed  through  eight  im- 
pressions, those  of  1867  and  1876  having  received  extensive  revision  and 
many  important  additions  at  the  hands  of  Mr.  Wyatt  Papworth.  In  this, 
the  ninth  impression,  besides  many  requisite  amendments  and  additions 
throughout  the  pages,  the  chapters  entitled  “Materials  Used  in  Buildings” 
and  “Use  of  Materials,’’  which  constitute  a main  portion  of  the  work,  have 
been  largely  revised,  parts  rewritten  and  added  to  in  important  particulars, 
especially  in  regard  to  the  details  of  Fire-proof  and  Sanitary  Construction, 
in  order  to  record  the  results  of  later  theories  and  the  numerous  inventions 
introduced  since  the  previous  revision.  The  Lives  of  Eminent  Architects 
have  been  brought  down  to  date  ; as  are  also  the  Publications,  which  have 
been  partly  rearranged  in  additional  classes  ; while  the  Glossary  of  Terms 
has  been  amended  where  desirable.  The  Index  has  been  carefully  revised 
to  include  all  new  matter. 

THE  STEPPING-STONE  TO  ARCHITECTURE: 

Explaining  in  simple  language  the  Principles  and  Progress  of 
Architecture  from  the  earliest  times.  By  Thomas  Mitchell. 
Illustrated  by  49  Figures  and  22  Plates.  iSmo,  83  pages,  socents. 

BUILDING  CONSTRUCTION. 

A Manual  for  Students.  By  the  Author  of  “ Notes  on  Building 
Construction.”  With  nearly  400  Illustrations  and  Index. 
Crown  8vo,  $1.50. 

GEOMETRICAL  DRAWING  FOR  ART  STUDENTS. 

Embracing  Plane  Geometry  and  its  Applications,  the  Use  of 
Scales,  and  the  Plans  and  Elevations  of  Solids.  With  nearly 
600  Figures.  By  I.  Hammond  Morris.  Crown  8vo,  192  pages, 
60  cents. 

THE  TEACHING  OF  DRAWING. 

By  I.  H.  Morris,  Art  Master.  With  675  Illustrations.  Crown 
8vo,  267  pages,  $1.50. 

The  book  contains  about  700  illustrations,  which  have  been  specially 
drawn  for  the  purpose.  The  Freehand  examples  . . . may  be 

divided  into  three  sections,  viz.:  Conventional  Ornament,  Plant  Forms, 

and  Common  Objects  They  are  selected  to  illustrate  definite  principles 
which  the  teacher  may  apply  to  other  figures.  Considerable  space  is 
devoted  to  Scale  Drawing,  Model  Drawing,  and  Solid  Geometry,  as  these 
parts  of  the  subject  require  the  most  skillful  and  intelligent  teaching. 

Especial  attention  is  directed  to  the  large  number  of  specimen  lessons. 
These  are  given  chiefly  with  a view  of  affording  assistance  to  young  teachers 
and  those  who  may  not  have  had  much  practical  acquaintance  with  the 
subject. 

THE  STORY  OF  MUSIC. 

By  W.  J.  Henderson.  Fourth  Edition.  i2mo,  cloth,  orna- 
mental, $1.00. 


LONGMANS,  GREEN,  & CO.,  91  and  93  Fifth  Ave.,  New  York. 


GETTY  CENTER  LIBRARY 


3 3125  00705  8635 


